Sitting of 23 April 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Manchester Ship Canal [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Liverpool Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Mullingar and the county of Tipperary (South Riding)." Presented by Mr. BIRRELL; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 120.]
Private Bills (Group C),
Sir HARRY SAMUEL reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Friday, at quarter-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Railway Bills (Group 1),
Sir IVOR HERBERT reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills; That Mr. Parkes, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5052 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to further provision with reference to the constitution of the Insurance Committee for the county borough of Dublin [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Wales) (Transfer of Deposit Contributors) Order, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners and the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions (Exempt Persons) Regulations (Ireland), 1913, made in respect of persons other than exempted Irish Migratory Labourers [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 86.]

ALIENS ACT, 1905.
Copy presented of Return of Alien Passenger Traffic to and from the United Kingdom during the three months ending 31st March, 1913, together with the number of Expulsion Orders made during that period requiring Aliens to leave the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 11th April, 1913, amending the Order in Council of 5th August, 1875, relating to the classification of Explosives [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COPYRIGHT ACT, 1911.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 11th April, 1913, giving effect to the accession of the Netherlands, on behalf of the Netherlands East Indies and Curacao, to the International Copyright Union of Berne [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL PRISONERS REMOVAL ACT, 1884.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 11th April, 1913, amending the Colonial Prisoners Removal Order in Council, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PACIFIC ISLANDERS PROTECTION ACT, 1875.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 11th April, 1913, entitled the Pacific (Barristers and Solicitors) Order in Council, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SEAL FISHERIES (NORTH PACIFIC) ACTS, 1895 AND 1912.
Copies presented of Orders in Council, dated 11th April, 1913, entitled—

1. The Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Order in Council, 1913;

2. The Seal Fisheries (Commonwealth of Australia) Order in Council, 1913;

3. The Seal Fisheries (Newfoundland) Order in Council, 1913;

4. The Seal Fisheries (Crown Colonies and Protectorates) Order in Council, 1913

[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of three Orders in Council, dated 11th April, 1913, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Stuart-Wortley to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Housing of the Working Classes Bill), and Mr. Arthur Henderson to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SAVINGS BANKS (IRELAND).
Return ordered "containing the following Tables:—

(I.) Table, arranged according to counties, showing for each Post Office Savings Bank in Ireland remaining open on the 31st day of December, 1912 (1) the number of accounts of depositors therein; and (2) the total amount, inclusive of interest, standing to the credit of those accounts on the 31st day of December of the years 1881, 1896, 1907, and 1912, respectively, with a summary showing the like particulars for each county and for all Ireland;

(II.) Table, arranged according to counties, showing for each Trustee Savings Bank in Ireland remaining open on the 20th day of November, 1912 (1) the number of accounts of depositors therein; and (2) the total amount, inclusive of interest, standing to the credit of those accounts on the 20th day of November of the years 1881, 1896, 1907, and 1912, respectively, with a summary showing the like particulars for each county and for all Ireland;

(III.) Table for each county and for all Ireland showing (1) the number of depositors' accounts and the total amount of deposits in Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks combined on the dates given in Tables I. and II. in the years 1881, 1896, 1907, and 1912, respectively; (2) the percentage by which the total deposits so arrived at for 1912 exceeded their total for 1881; (3) the percentage by which the total rental dealt with under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts in the period from the 22nd day of August, 1881, to the 31st day of March, 1913, has been reduced for a first statutory term; (4) the percentage by which the total first term rental dealt with under the said Acts in the period ended the 31st day of March, 1913, has been further reduced for a second statutory term; and (5) the percentage by which the total rental which has been revised for two statutory terms under the said Acts in the said period has been reduced;

(IV.) Table showing the total amount of the deposits and private balances (exclusive of Government deposits and London accounts) in the Joint

327
Stock Banks in Ireland on the 30th day of June in the years 1881, 1896, 1908, and 1913, respectively, and the percentage by which such deposits and balances on the 30th day of June, 1913, exceeded their amount on the 30th day of June, 1881 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 119, of Session 1909)"—[Mr. Hugh Barrie.]

FORGERY BILL [Lords.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider the Forgery Bill [Lords] do meet in Committee Room A on Monday the 28th of April, at Twelve o'clock.
  Lords Message considered.
  Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Committee of the Lords as proposed by their Lordships.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

RURAL CREDIT BANKS BILL.
Second Reading deferred from Wednesday next till Tuesday 10th June.
ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL.
Second Reading deferred from Monday next till Tuesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    HOME DEFENCE.
    Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps have been taken by the Government to prevent London or any of our big towns or naval dockyards from being bombarded at night from the air by the big airships of a foreign nation?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Although the Admiralty is taking an active interest in this question so far as the naval establishments are concerned, matters relating to passive defences are controlled by the War Office.

    AIRCRAFT.
    Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what amount of money is provided in the present Estimates for building large dirigibles equal in power and speed to the German "Zeppelin" type; and what amount of money is provided for the necessary sheds for housing them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No money is provided in the present Estimates for building aircraft of the type referred to. Provision has been made in the Estimates for the building of sheds, which is the essential preliminary to the acquisition of such vessels, but it would not be in the public interest to name the amount.
    Mr. HUNT: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that Germany has already got twelve big airships and is providing £900,000 for building more during the next twelve months?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Admiralty is not unprovided with information on that subject.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that sheds only take a tithe of the time to build that airships take?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should think that that observation is as inaccurate as several others I have heard the hon. Gentleman make on the subject.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement is not correct? He knows it is correct.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be very glad to have a proposal for the construction of sheds in a tenth part of the time required to construct airships.

    "DREADNOUGHTS" IN HOME WATERS.
    Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that Germany will have more ships of the "Dreadnought" type ready for immediate war in Home waters than we shall have next April, he can say how we are to be safeguarded against this peril to our security and freedom?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member will do me the honour of reading the speeches I have made on the Navy Estimates this year and last, he will see the absurdity of the hypothesis on which his question is based.
    Mr. HUNT: Did not the right hon. Gentleman himself tell us that we should only have twenty-five, that Germany would have twenty-one, and that as five of our ships are in the Mediterranean these would have to be taken off for our average moment, while none would have to be taken off for Germany's selected moment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I said it was quite impossible to deal with these matters by question and answer. If the hon. Gentleman will read my speeches, he will see all I have to say on the subject. After that, he will form his own judgment.
    Mr. HUNT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that I did read his speeches, and, further, whether he learned arithmetic at school?

    STATUTORY DECLARATIONS.
    Mr. BARNESasked whether there is any officer aboard His Majesty's ships before whom statutory declarations under the Statutory Declarations Act of 1835 can be made; and, if so, what rank does such officer hold?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am advised that so far as can be ascertained there is no officer ordinarily aboard His Majesty's ships who is authorised by law to take statutory declarations.

    DOCKYARDS (HIRED WORKMEN).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will undertake on behalf of the Government to provide the services of an actuary to consider any scheme for pensions drawn up by the hired workmen in His Majesty's dockyards free of charge to the men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I received on Monday last a deputation of hired workmen from Chatham, Devonport, Portsmouth and Pembroke Yards in connection with a proposal which has been discussed by the hired men for some years past in favour of the establishment of some system of superannuation for these men, who, unlike the established men, are not eligible for pensions on retirement. The deputation placed before me various statements respecting the extent to which they thought that hired men would be able to contribute to such a scheme, which they realised must be self-supporting. I stated that I would consider whether, if
    330
    the definite outlines of a scheme were submitted, the men could be assisted by an actuarial statement as to the feasibility of their proposal. That I will do. But as the provision of actuarial advice does not entirely rest with the Admiralty, I cannot at this juncture undertake to give a definite reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what is the amount of the Government liability at the present time to hired workmen in His Majesty's dockyards in respect to gratuities?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The liability in respect of gratuities to hired workmen necessarily fluctuates from year to year according to the numbers of employés discharged. The estimated expenditure in the current financial year, 1913–14, is £13,500. I may add that during the ten years, 1902–3 to 1911–12, the sum of £169,864 was actually paid in gratuities.

    PERSIAN GULF (GUN-RUNNING).
    Colonel YATEasked what are the other Departments concerned in the question of the distribution of the prize money earned by the officers and men serving in His Majesty's ships in the operations for the prevention of gun-running in the Persian Gulf during the last few years, and when the correspondence is likely to be completed?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The other Departments concerned are the Treasury and India Office. It is hoped that a settlement of the amount of prize money to be given will be arrived at shortly.

    Portuguese Wines (Customs Charges).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any settlement has yet been reached of the dispute with Portugal regarding the alleged unfairness of Customs charges on her wines as contrasted with the charges on French and Spanish wines when imported into this country; and, if not, will he urge some settlement, in view of the fact that British motor cars are being penalised on their export to Portugal?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The negotiations with Portugal are continuing, and His Majesty's Government are making every effort to bring them to a successful conclusion.

    China.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States of America was one of the Powers which agreed, at the time of the establishment of the present administration in China, to act in concert as to the recognition of the Republic there; if so, whether the United States of America has now withdrawn from that concert; whether it has formally recognised the Republic or proposes to do so shortly; and whether individual action will now be taken by this country in the way of recognition?
    Mr. ACLAND: I can give no information as to the past or present intentions of the United States Government in regard to the recognition of the Chinese Republic, but as far as I am aware they have not yet recognised. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    Lagos Harbour (Dredging).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any contract price has been arranged for the dredging work at Lagos Harbour, Southern Nigeria; if so, what is that contract price; and will he say what official is responsible for the economical superintendence of that part of the work, has he any previous experience of similar undertakings, and is he at present on the spot looking after his duties?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The work is not done by contract, but is carried out by the Marine Department of the Colony. The superintendent of marine, who has considerable experience of dredging, superintends the operations generally, and acts in consultation with the resident engineer for the harbour works. Both these officers are at present in the Colony.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (STAFF OFFICERS).
    Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked what number of past staff college officers would be available as staff officers for each division of the Territorial Force on mobilisation in the absence of the Expeditionary Force?
    Colonel SEELY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to my reply to a similar question put by him on 21st May last year.

    IMPERIAL GENERAL STAFF.
    Major M'CALMONTasked the Secretary of State for War whether the opinions of the General Staff on questions of policy, as announced by him, are the views of the chief of the Imperial General Staff himself or the considered views of the officers of the General Staff at the War Office, or of all such officers; and whether commanders and General Staff officers of divisions and brigades of the Territorial Force are invited to forward their views to the War Office on such of the important questions as are connected with that force?
    Colonel SEELY: It is in the discretion of the chief of the Imperial General Staff to avail himself of such advice as he thinks fit before tendering his opinion on any subject.
    Major M'CALMONT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that means that the chief of the Imperial General Staff can give his advice on his own initiative without consulting the officers of the General Staff at the War Office?
    Colonel SEELY: I have the fullest confidence in the chief of the Imperial General Staff, and I have no doubt that he always takes proper steps.
    Major M'CALMONT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the last part of my question as regards the officers of the Territorial Force?
    Colonel SEELY: I have said that the chief of the Imperial General Staff exercises his discretion, and I think he always exercises it wisely.

    NATIONAL DEFENCE.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has a definite assurance from the Admiralty that the Navy could certainly prevent an enemy from landing a force of 70,000 men with some Artillery, but no mounted troops, within the space of thirty-six hours; and, if not, could he say whether the Territorials and the remaining men of the Regular Army and Special Reserve could drive these invaders into the sea within a week of their landing, if the Expeditionary Force was abroad?
    Colonel SEELY: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to my reply to a question on this subject put by the hon. and gallant Member for the Andover Division on Monday last.
    Mr. HUNT: Since then has not the First Sea Lord told us that the Navy alone cannot prevent invasion, and that we must have well-trained troops as well?
    Colonel SEELY: Nothing that the First Sea Lord has said will alter the statement which I have made. I cannot enter into the question of invasion by question and answer. It is obviously a proper subject of debate.
    Mr. HUNT: Is not this a question of fact?

    MILITIA BALLOT ACT.
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked whether the Militia Ballot Act is still in existence; whether it could be made use of in an emergency; and, if so, to what branch of the Service could it be applied?
    Colonel SEELY: The Militia Ballot Acts are still unrepealed, but they could not be applied to any existing branch of the Service without further legislation.

    VOLUNTEER FLYING COKPS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the proposal to establish a volunteer flying corps at Liverpool; and whether he will be prepared to recognise and encourage the new organisation so soon as private generosity has provided the necessary equipment?
    Colonel SEELY: A notification of the proposal has been received, and is now under consideration.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many effective aeroplanes ready to start for war at an hour's notice are now in the possession of the Royal Flying Corps; and how many have been delivered since the introduction of the Army Estimates for the current year; and (2)how many effective aeroplanes in the possession of Squadrons Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the Royal Flying Corps, respectively, have been destroyed or seriously damaged by accident since the 1st of April; and what is the number of new machines of modern type taken over by those squadrons since the same date?
    Colonel SEELY: It is not considered to be in the interests of the public service to publish the required information.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has allowed a Member of the other House of Parliament to inquire into this matter, will he permit a couple of Members on this side to go and see these machines?
    Colonel SEELY: I do not know whether there is any use in my giving further replies to the hon. Gentleman. I have repeatedly made statements, and he does not believe any of them. If he asks whether I can give the information which I gave to Lord Montagu to a couple of representative Gentlemen on the other side I should be only too happy to do so.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether I ever suggested that I did not believe him personally, or whether I have not assumed that he was acting on information wrongly supplied by his officers?
    Colonel SEELY: I think that that is even worse, as it implies that distinguished officers in the public service in giving me information deliberately concealed the truth from me. I resent that most strongly on their behalf.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what is the condition of the monoplanes which the Royal Flying Corps were forbidden to fly pending the Report of his Committee; whether any of those have yet been flown since the Committee reported; and whether any of the officers of the Royal Flying Corps are allowed to fly Nieuport monoplanes or if they are still considered unsafe?
    Colonel SEELY: I have nothing to add to the information which I gave the hon. Member in reply to questions put by him on this subject on 13th March.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Have these machines been flown since that date? It is now five weeks after.
    Colonel SEELY: I have said that I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 13th March.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the new Government-built biplane alleged to have flown at a speed of 91 miles per hour, was recently practically destroyed in an accident which was due to the natural instability of the machine and not an engine defect; and whether in that accident Second-lieutenant Geoffrey De Havilland was seriously injured, and is still in hospital?
    Colonel SEELY: The accident was not due to any inherent instability. I regret to say that Second-lieutenant De Havilland, who has rendered great service in flying different types of machines, was hurt. He is, however, expected to be out of hospital in a few days.

    DRILL HALL (STOWMARKET).
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the War Office sanctioned some months ago the purchase of a site for a new drill hall at Stowmarket, but that the county association cannot proceed with the building as they are unable to obtain the consent of the War Office to the detailed plans which they have submitted; and whether he can state when such consent will be given?
    Colonel SEELY: The sketch, plans and estimate submitted for the new building of the Suffolk County Association were not sufficiently detailed and the association has been asked to work out their plans and specification in full with the assistance of the expert War Office adviser.

    LORD ROBERTS.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for War whether His Majesty's troops were used to welcome and accompany Lord Roberts on his recent visit to Leeds; and whether, seeing that his visit was entirely non-official and undertaken to promote a political object of a controversial character and opposed to the declared policy of His Majesty's Government, he will say what are the precedents, if any, for such employment of the national forces?
    Colonel SEELY: I am informed that on the occasion in question the local Territorial Force applied for permission under paragraph 543, Territorial Force Regulations, to furnish a guard of honour to Lord Roberts on his visit to Leeds, and that such permission was granted by the general officer commanding-in-chief concerned.
    Sir W. BYLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman allow that the visit was for a political object?
    Colonel SEELY: The circumstances were rather peculiar. It was very proper that a distinguished Field Marshal who was being welcomed by the Lord Mayor should receive such a courtesy. On the other hand, the meeting subsequently
    336
    held, it is quite true, as indicated in the question, was in flat contradiction to the declared policy of His Majesty's Government.
    Sir W. BYLES: When I go down to speak against conscription, shall I have a guard of honour?
    Colonel SEELY: If my hon. Friend can come within the category laid down, I am sure that he will be entitled to it. It is for the rank of Field Marshal.

    Civil Service (Clerkships).
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in inviting candidates to compete for clerk ships in the various Departments of the Civil Service, the Civil Service Commissioners use the word "clerkship" in the sense that the office of clerk calls for the performance of clerical duties only?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The use of the title "clerk" does not necessarily imply that the duties of an office are exclusively clerical, nor does it preclude heads of Departments from requiring officers designated as clerks to perform duties which are not strictly clerical, if the public interest necessitate it.

    Customs Port Clerks.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the date and text of the Board of Customs authority for employing Customs port clerks on outdoor duties prior to 1908?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, Section 3.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked what are the salaries of the fifteen senior Customs port clerks, second class, lower section, now included in the officer class; if they were eligible, prior to the amalgamation, for promotion to upper section clerkships in the office of the Accountant and Comptroller-General of the Customs; if the lower section clerks in the outports and those in the Accountant and Comptroller-General's Office were borne on the one common seniority list, and if it was the practice to fill upper section vacancies in this office from the common seniority list; what are the present salaries of the lower section clerks recently promoted in this office; what were their salaries before promotion; and what were their positions on the common seniority list?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is that one of these fifteen clerks who had been specially promoted to the class and had carried his salary with him is receiving £240, and the remaining fourteen of them are receiving £160; to the second, third and fourth parts, in the affirmative; to the fifth, £200; to the sixth, £150 or £140; and to the last part, that the clerks recently promoted to minor staff clerkships in the Accountant and Comptroller-General's Office (scale £200-£300) occupied positions junior to the fifteen men above-mentioned, but that in accepting this promotion they have sacrificed the right they previously possessed in common with other late port clerks, including the fifteen mentioned, to progress in default of promotion to a salary of £400.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked, having regard to the former practice, as indicated by Mr. Gladstone, that if the likelihood of promotion were diminished the Government were bound to make some satisfaction (28th April, 1865), and by Mr. Goschen that officers should have no reason to complain that the terms on which they entered the service have been altered to their detriment (31st March, 1890), and also in the Goschen Minute of 24th March, 1891, what compensation has been given to the senior port clerks, second class lower section, outside the Accountant General's Office, for the reduction of their prospects of promotion due to amalgamation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The general effect of amalgamation upon the conditions of service and prospects of promotion of these and other officials was carefully considered by the Customs and Excise Amalgamation Committee, and subsequently by myself, and I beg to refer the hon. Member to the provisions of paragraphs 155–157 of the Committee's Report (Command Paper 5830). To this I may add that on 3rd May last, in reply to a deputation, I agreed that these officers should be allowed a second try at the competitions for promotion in addition to a right, if efficient, to progress to £400 without examination.

    Cottages and Small Houses.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the figures showing the increase in Great Britain in the year 1911–12 in the number of cottages and small houses under £20 annual value and
    338
    of houses over £20 annual value, respectively, as compared with the previous year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The increase in the year 1911–12 over the numbers of the preceding year was 80,165 in the case of cottages and small houses of under £20 annual value, and 12,370 in the case of private houses of £20 annual value or upwards.
    Mr. ROYDS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that notwithstanding the abnormal decrease in building in 1910–11 after the passing of the People's Budget yet the figures he has just quoted show a serious decrease as compared with the average of previous years preceding the Budget?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not remember the figures at the present, moment, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate.
    Mr. ROYDS: Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is any prospect of the serious deficiency being removed so long as the People's Budget remains on the Statute Book?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a controversial statement made with the view of expressing an opinion.

    Imperial and Local Taxation.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the reasons for the delay in the issue of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Imperial and Local Taxation; and whether, in view of his constantly expressed inability to consider the financial grievances of local authorities pending its publication, and the consequent widespread protest on the part of such bodies, he will request the chairman of the Committee to proceed with the drafting of some Report, interim if not final, without further delay?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no reason to believe that there has been or will be any undue delay on the part of the Committee, regard being had to the complicated nature of the subject.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to pacify the county councils by indicating that it is desired that this Report should be published at an early date?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would rather have a careful consideration of one or two very difficult problems which I indicated some time ago. For instance, what is to be done with the area problem? Up to the present they have not considered that fully.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman still bear in mind that two years ago he assured the House that the Committee would take only a short time with their deliberations, and would publish a Report at an early date?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They have found the problem much bigger than they anticipated when they first commenced their sittings.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Meanwhile will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation from the Stoke Borough Council on this subject next week?
    Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked whether the Local Taxation Committee have refused to hear evidence from Irish witnesses until they have finished hearing English and Scottish evidence; and if so whether he has made representations to the Committee in reference to hearing Irish evidence immediately, and with what result?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that the Local Taxation Committee have postponed the hearing of evidence in regard to Ireland, but I am not aware of their reasons for doing so. The order of their inquiry is for the Committee to decide, and I do not propose to interfere with their discretion in the matter.
    Mr. BARRIE: Has any direction been given by the right hon. Gentleman to the committee?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think it would be for me to issue directions to a Committee of that kind. Were I to do so, I should be subjected to the criticism of the hon. Member who sits behind the hon. Gentleman, and who certainly would not agree with him in any direction of this kind being given.
    Mr. BARRIE: The right hon. Gentleman said he would do so.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said I would write to the Committee, but that I would not express any opinion as to whether or not the Committee should take Irish evidence.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Have the Committee made any representations to the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not like to answer without notice. I have had no intimation of anything of the kind. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question?

    Public Works Loan Commissioners.
    Mr. ROYDSasked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give figures showing the sums advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners in the years 1909–10, 1910–11, and 1911–12, respectively, for the erection of dwelling-houses, and the number of houses erected in each of the three years named by means of such advances?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will give the figures of the loans approved by the Commissioners and of the number of dwellings to be erected for the last four financial years:—

    Year.

    Loans Approved.

    Number of Dwellings to be Erected.

    £

    1909–10

    …

    191,495

    …

    1,758

    1910–11

    …

    428,214

    …

    2,146

    1911–12

    …

    338,496

    …

    1,904

    1912–13

    …

    877,154

    …

    5,279

    Estate Duty Office.
    Mr. ROYDSasked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give figures showing the estimated annual increase in the cost of the Valuation Department of the Estate Duty Office as reorganised in the spring of 1909, compared with the annual cost of such Department previously?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Valuation Department of the Estate Duty Office, established in 1909, has been merged in the General Valuation Staff, and it is not possible to form an estimate of the proportion of the cost of that staff which is attributable to work in connection with valuation for Death Duty purposes.
    Mr. ROYDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he stated in the year 1909, in regard to this Department then set up, that it was efficient and responsible for the large increased yield in Estate Duty receipts?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I stated yesterday what the explanation was.
    Mr. ROYDS: The right hon. Gentleman stated yesterday that it was the Valuation Department set up in 1910 that was responsible for the increase. The Department referred to was that set up in 1909 before the passing of the People's Budget.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly; that is the Department which is doing the work.

    Darngavil Coal Company.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGERasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention has been called to the Darngavil Coal Company case, in which deductions were claimed from Income Tax assessments in respect of payments made by that company to a wagon company under a hire and purchase agreement for a supply of wagons; whether, in terms of a circular recently issued by the Secretary to the Inland Revenue, surveyors of Income Tax were instructed to discontinue the practice of splitting these payments and allowing as deduction in charging the Income Tax such part as was thought fairly to represent hire; whether he is aware that, in deciding the case against the Inland Revenue, the Lord President of the Court of Session commented adversely on the practice of issuing such circulars without taking the advice of Law Officers; and whether he will see that in future needless expense is not thrown upon the public by the neglect of this precaution?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My attention has been called to the case referred to by the hon. Baronet. In May, 1909, when the circular referred to was issued, it was the general (but not universal) practice not to allow any deduction in respect of the payments referred to, and the circular issued to surveyors of taxes endeavoured to secure uniformity of treatment of assessments by the District Commissioners of Taxes on colliery proprietors and others. When issuing circular instructions to their surveyors, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue take legal advice where deemed necessary, but it would not be practicable to submit all such circulars to the Law Officers
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord President in his judgment said that any Law Officer who supported the contention of the circular would be supporting nonsense?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is telling me something to which he has not called my attention.

    First Garden City, Limited.
    Captain CLIVEasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware that the First Garden City, Limited, are unable yet to pay a dividend, and that this is to a large extent due to the uncertainty as to their liability for Increment and Undeveloped Land Duties; that whatever liability there may be for these duties has been entirely created by their own enterprise in creating a model city on what was ten years ago agricultural land; and that during these ten years no interest has been paid on the capital contributed by the pioneers of the enterprise; and if he will introduce legislation to prevent this check on the development of garden cities?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have heard from the chairman of the First Garden City, Limited, who states that it is ridiculous to suggest that the Land Duties are in any way responsible for their not having paid a dividend hitherto.
    Captain CLIVE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last report and in the report of the year before it was stated that the company were not in a position to pay a dividend because they thought it wiser to wait until they saw the result of the Land Duties?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a very different thing. I have read the actual words written to me by the chairman himself.

    Undeveloped Land Duty.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked if the Estimate of revenue for 1913–14 from Undeveloped Land Duty has been framed after the service in all cases of provisional notices on the owners of such land under Section 27 (1) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and, if not, what steps will be taken to amend the Estimates to cover the contingency of appeal against the assessments being successful?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In framing the Estimates of revenue for the year mentioned, due regard was had to the contingencies referred to.

    Old Sinking Fund.
    Mr. F. HALLasked in which of the published public accounts, and in what

    343
    item of such accounts, the disposal of the £1,500,000 diverted from the Old Sinking Fund of last year is shown?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The item forms part of the Exchequer Balances shown on the account of Public Income and Expenditure for 1912–13, which was presented on the 17th instant, and will very shortly be issued to the House.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask whether the amount was not ear-marked for the purpose of the Navy and for the purpose of loans to the East African Protectorate and to Uganda; and was not notification given to the House in July, 1912, that it was for those purposes?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I explained very fully yesterday what it was for. It was simply added to the Exchequer Balances, and when added to the Exchequer Balances nothing is ear-marked.
    Mr. F. HALL: May the £1,500,000 be used for the purpose of liquidating any deficit in the Budget of 1913–14?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Of course Exchequer Balances can be used for liquidating any debt.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is raising a debate. If he does not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer he had better raise it at the proper time.

    Small Holdings.
    Captain CLIVEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the grounds on which, after the Herefordshire small holdings committee had obtained leave from the county council to spend up to £22,000 on the purchase of certain land for small holdings which had been previously gone over and valued by three members of the committee, of whom two were expert land valuers, a telegram was sent from the Board of Agriculture declining to sanction bidding beyond 80 per cent. of the Committee's valuation; and if he is aware that this action is not only a check on the creation of small holdings, but discourages members of the committee from devoting their time and expert knowledge to inspecting and valuing land with a view to purchase?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The telegram to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was sent after careful consideration of a detailed report upon the property in question submitted to the Board by the Small Holdings Commissioner for the district. One hundred and seventy-six acres out of a total of 698 are woodland, the buildings are in a very bad state of repair, and generally it appeared to the Board that, as considerable expense would have to be incurred in adapting the property for small holdings—expense which would have to be made good by heavy annuity charges on the tenants—the Board would not be justified in authorising a purchase at the figure suggested by the county council. The Board are anxious to encourage the acquisition of land for small holdings, and to avoid any action which would be likely to discourage local authorities in providing them, but every proposal submitted to them must be considered on its merits, and it is the duty of the Board in all cases where it appears to them that failure would be likely to result to withhold their approval.

    Importation of Irish Stock.
    Mr. GINNELLasked if the President of the Board of Agriculture will state what is the market price of good hay at Liverpool; whether he is aware that the lairage authorities there are charging Irish cattle traders at the rate of £10 per ton for inferior fodder; and, if he has power to remedy this, whether he will do so without delay?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the average price of good hay at Liverpool is £5 per ton. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative; One case was brought to my notice in which hay of inferior quality was supplied, and immediate steps were taken to prevent any recurrence of this cause for complaint. If the hon. Member can give me particulars of any other case I will have it investigated.
    Mr. BARRIEasked what has been and what is the present charge for lairage of Irish cattle at Merklands, Glasgow?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the charge levied for lairage of Irish cattle at Merklands was, until the 20th April, inclusive, 3s. per head for the first period of twenty-four hours, but that it has now been reduced to 2s. 3d. per head

    345
    for the first twenty-four hours, and 6d. per head for each such subsequent period or part thereof.
    Mr. BARRIE: Arising out of that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman say how he came to inform the House on 8th February, and again on 10th April, that only 2s. 6d. per head was being charged?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is a later question (No. 52), the answer to which will give the hon. Gentleman the information he asks for.
    Mr. BARRIEasked what has been the total number of Irish cattle landed at Merklands, Glasgow, since the detention period has been insisted upon by the Department; and what has been the total sum collected by the local authority on these cattle for lairage charges during that time?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The number of Irish cattle landed at Merklands between the 8th July last and the 19th April was 175,448. The lairage charges at the rate of 3s. per head hitherto levied would amount to £26,317, but this is a conjectural computation, and I have not been able to ascertain the precise amount actually received.
    Mr. BARRIEasked what has been the total number of Irish cattle landed at the port of Ayr since the detention period has been insisted upon by the Department, and what has been the total sum collected by the local authority on these cattle for lairage charges during that time?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The number of Irish cattle landed at Ayr between 21st January last, when the port was first opened for this traffic, and 19th April was 39,702. The lairage charges at 2s. per head would amount to £3,970, but this is only a computation, and I have no official figures.
    Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked whether repeated complaints continue to reach the Department in reference to the charge imposed for the lairage of cattle at Merklands, Glasgow; whether this charge is disproportionate to the charge imposed at other ports where Irish cattle are landed; and is it still claimed that the present detention period is either a necessary precaution as regards the spreading of disease or is in any way beneficial to the cattle themselves?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to all three parts of the question is in the affirmative. I may add that in view of the complaints received by the Board a public inquiry will be held at an early date in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 32 (7) of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894.
    Mr. BARRIE: May I ask whether the charge levied up to last Saturday and since the embargo was put in force, means that about £17,000 more has been collected from the owners of Irish cattle landed at Merklands than would have been collected on the same number of cattle if landed at Birkenhead?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot make these calculations on the spur of the moment, and I do not think they arise out of the question.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Will this inquiry have any reference to the necessity for the continuance of this twelve hours' detention?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No; that is a matter which lies within the jurisdiction of the Board of Agriculture. The inquiry will be concerned with the charges made for lairage.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: May I ask if this charge of 3s. includes the food supplied to the animals during their detention at this place?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Any question with regard to the 3s. that was charged up to 19th April I ought to have notice of, as I cannot give particulars off-hand.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what the money is devoted?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I presume it is devoted to the general purposes of the Glasgow Corporation, whose property the wharf is.
    Mr. BARRIE: Does the charge include food?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot answer questions on this subject without notice. I cannot carry particulars of every port in my head.
    Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to insist on a lesser charge for lairage at

    347
    Merklands, Glasgow, for store than for fat cattle; whether the value of store cattle is on the average less than one-half; and whether this is acknowledged by the shipping and railway companies carrying them at greatly lower rates than are charged for finished animals?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer the bon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question on 10th April. The value of store cattle is no doubt considerably less than that of fat cattle, and I understand that by some routes lower rates are offered for transport of the former from Ireland to places in this country, but that it is not the ordinary practice of the English railway companies to differentiate rates in their favour.
    Mr. WATT: May I ask is it not the fact that the lairage at Merklands is superior to that of any other port, and therefore entitled to a superior price?
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether owners are allowed to be present when their Irish lambs are being offered hay, bruised oats, and milk; and, if not, will he state the reason for excluding them?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The second part therefore does not arise.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is there any danger in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's experts of colic resulting from this method of feeding young lambs?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, there has been no sign up to the present of those young lambs suffering from any complaint.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the number of Irish lambs this year that par took of hay, bruised oats, and milk, respectively, during the hours of detention on this side; whether he can state the total quantity of each article of diet actually consumed apart from wastage; and what was the cost per head for the food?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that I am unable to give all the particulars for which the hon. Member asks, but perhaps it will be sufficient for his purpose if I give the information which I have received from Birkenhead, where most of the lambs
    348
    have been landed. Five hundred and ninety-eight lambs in all have been landed, and all have partaken of hay, though I cannot state the quantity; 400 received, in addition, half a pint of new milk each, and eighty-two were also fed with special lamb food. I understand that the cost of feeding amounts to about twopence per head.
    Mr. DELANY: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how the milk is administered to those lambs?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have frequently given the information; it is a kind of feeding cup.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: May I ask, has any responsible person ever witnessed those lambs partaking of hay and bruised oats? In my opinion you might as well give infants a month old bread and butter.
    Mr. DELANY: Would the right hon. Gentleman call this feeding of the lambs forcible feeding?
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will state upon what authority he recently made the statement to a deputation from the National Federation of Meat Traders, when referring to the attitude of the Irish people towards repressive restrictions, that they came as near as possible to a revolt against their own department last summer and autumn; and whether that statement was made after consultation with the head of the Irish Department?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no recollection of the statement attributed to me in this question. But when the deputation waited on me I answered a suggestion that the Board of Agriculture should take over the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts in Ireland, and I pointed out the impracticability of this suggestion by calling attention to the insistence of the Irish race upon the right to manage their own affairs.
    Mr. WHITE: If I send a newspaper report to the right hon. Gentleman giving the exact words I quoted, will he give an explanation of them?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have given an explanation. The point is perfectly clear. I have no intention of taking over the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act for the reasons I have mentioned.
    Mr. WHITE: That is not the point. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman addressing a deputation of Englishmen told them that the Irish people were in revolt against the action of the Irish Department with regard to the imposing of restrictions in Ireland?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say that I used those exact words. Everybody knows that there has been a good deal of feeling in Ireland expressed against restrictions imposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Department, as there was in some districts in England.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Is the Irish Department responsible for the policy which the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing, and if it has not been consulted, how is the right hon. Gentleman practising the principle of allowing the Irish people to conduct their own affairs?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know that that arises. I have no control over the Irish Department, and my right hon. Friend has no control over the English Department.

    School of Oriental Languages.
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the call for the establishment of the new school of oriental languages, he will now take the necessary steps for the immediate appointment of the governing body, etc., on the lines laid down in the Report of the Royal Commission on University Education in London, pages 62, 63, and 198?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No steps can be taken with regard to this question till the final report of Lord Cromer's Oriental Studies Committee is received.

    Wheat Growing.
    Captain FABERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state whether a new wheat has been discovered in Italy and grown in South Africa, called the rainless wheat, which can be grown without any rain falling on it between seed-time and harvest; and if he can give any particulars.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that certain of the Italian macaroni wheats have been grown in parts of South Africa where little or no rain falls between seedtime and harvest, but that there is no
    350
    reason to suppose that these wheats are new varieties.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will now lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence which took place between the various officers of the British and Irish Departments relating to the animals shipped from Newry to Birkenhead and alleged to be diseased by the English officers at the latter place, but which subsequent examination proved to be incorrect; and whether he will also lay all correspondence between the two Departments relative to the Armagh cases, and also concerning the twelve hours detention of Irish animals on this side?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not prepared to take the unusual course suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. WHITE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman promise the correspondence which took place at the time?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, that will be forthcoming in due course.

    Diseased Pigs.
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the hardship inflicted on dealers and others who buy pigs passed as sound in the market by the Board's inspectors which, after they have been slaughtered, are condemned as unfit for human food; and whether he will consider the advisability of paying compensation in such cases?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is no part of the duties of the Board's inspectors to pass as sound pigs exposed in markets, and I am not aware that they do so. The Board have no power to pay compensation for animals other than those slaughtered by their direction under the Diseases of Animals Acts.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that tuberculosis among swine is steadily on the increase; that pigs are frequently condemned after slaughter as tuberculous without previously having any obvious symptoms of the disease; and whether, in view of the condemnation of such animals and their carcases being in the interests of public health and taking into account the comparative poverty of

    351
    many of their owners, he will make application to the Treasury for a sufficient sum to pay compensation to the owners, as in the analogous case of cattle, of a due proportion of their market value?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that there has been an increase in the number of carcases of swine condemned on account of tuberculosis, but I am not prepared to say whether this is due to an increase in the prevalence of the disease or to more systematic inspection of meat. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. The last part of the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is there any distinction in principle as regards compensation between pigs and cattle?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think there is any distinction in principle between them, but the circumstances certainly differ.

    Butlocks School Dispute.
    Captain FABERhad given notice of the following question: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state whether the Butlocks school dispute is now settled; and, if so, on what conditions; and whether the normal amount of children now attend the school?
    This question is postponed, but I would ask whether anything really is going to be done. Upon last Tuesday we were told something was going to be done, but I have a telegram here saying that nothing has been done since.

    Prison Service (Scotland).
    Mr. COWANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a memorial by the stewards of His Majesty's Prison Department (Scotland), submitting an application to His Majesty's Prison Commissioners for Scotland, desiring to be placed on the same scale of pay and allowances as storekeepers or stewards in the English prison service holding the same rank; and whether, seeing that there are only four Scottish prison stewards in question and that the total amount asked for does not exceed £40 per annum, while the cost of living is not appreciably lower in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Peterhead, than in England, he will recommend that the application should be granted?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I am aware of the petition referred to by my hon. Friend, but I find that these officers' scales of salary were substantially increased in 1910. I am not satisfied that a further increase is necessary, having regard to the higher average figures of prison population in England as compared with Scotland.
    Mr. COWAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain what the higher prison population has got to do with the cost of living in Scotland as compared with England?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think it has anything to do with the cost of living, but it has some relation to the work done.

    Road Board (Grants in Ireland).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the total amount of the roads Grant allocated to Ireland, and the total amount distributed in Grants to date; if the operations of the Road Board in Ireland are hampered by the division of responsibility for the maintenance of main roads between the county and the rural district councils; and if any steps are under consideration to make the county councils the sole authority over the main roads of the country?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Grants to an aggregate amount of £144,236 have been indicated by the Road Board to highway authorities in Ireland, and the Board are now engaged in selecting and obtaining particulars of other works of improvement, towards which they are prepared to contribute a further sum of about £100,000. The amount actually paid up to 31st March, 1913, in respect of work carried out under Grants was £43,113. In addition, advances by way of loan to an aggregate amount of £9,376 have been indicated and accepted. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative.

    Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
    Mr. GINNELLasked on what statutory provision or legal opinion the Comptroller and Auditor-General relies in allowing the Local Government Board for Ireland to alter and restrict by circular the administration of the loan of £1,000,000 issued in 1911 for the purposes of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, thus preventing the operation of schemes conforming in

    353
    every respect to those Acts; and whether the Board will be required, in the allocation of the forthcoming loan, to disregard their circular, observe the Acts, and enable the suspended schemes to be carried out?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The functions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General would not extend beyond seeing that the Grants made were duly authorised by the authority appointed to authorise them under the Acts, and that the total authorised by the Acts was not exceeded.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    FEMALE EMPLOYED CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many of the 80,000 male and 320,000 female employed contributors insured under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, and receiving less than 2s. per day, are in Ireland, and how many are in England, Wales, and Scotland, respectively?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The claims for the State contribution on the basis of which the figures as to insured persons in receipt of low wages were given in answer to the hon. Member for Colchester on the 21st April were, for the four countries:—

    Men.

    Women.

    England

    …

    …

    30,600

    …

    227,400

    Scotland

    …

    …

    2,867

    …

    39,286

    Ireland

    …

    …

    50,843

    …

    55,727

    Wales

    …

    …

    623

    …

    4,141

    84,933

    326,554

    Total

    …

    411,487

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) if his attention has been called to the case of Miss Jeannie G. Grey, of Cavenham, Suffolk, F29/16,136, who, although she has paid her full contributions under the National Insurance Act, has been unable to obtain sick benefit, to which she became entitled on 24th January; and will he explain why it is being withheld; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the case of John Kerry, No. 4 in Registered Society No. 123, who, although he has paid twenty-six weeks' contributions, has not been able to obtain any sick benefit under the National Insurance Act; and whether he can state why it is being withheld?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No communications have been received by the Insurance Commissioners with reference to these cases. The particulars contained in the questions are not sufficient to enable the insured persons to be identified, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with their addresses and the names of the societies and branches of which they are members, I will cause inquiries to be made.

    JUVENILE LABOUR.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the report of an investigation conducted by the research committee of the Christian Social Union into the trades of fruit preserving, pickle making, confectionery, tea packing, coffee and cocoa packing, and biscuit making in the East End of London, and to the statement made in that report that the practice is becoming increasingly prevalent in those trades of dismissing girls of sixteen and replacing them by girls of fourteen; and that where the check system is in vogue the girls work at pressure; and, in view of this evil, whether the Government will introduce in the National Insurance Act such amendments as will prevent this exploitation of juvenile labour?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have read with great interest a copy which the Noble Lord has been good enough to send me of the report referred to in his question. I have no evidence that such replacement of older by younger girls, as is suggested, is taking place to any considerable extent. The question of the further regulation of the employment of girls of fourteen in factories is one which might be met by legislation, but I do not think it could be dealt with by an Amendment of the Insurance Act.

    INSURED PERSONS IN HOSPITAL.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether, in the case of an insured person without dependants having to pay 5s. a week for her maintenance in the Nelson Hospital during a time when she is otherwise qualified for sick benefit, the fact that she is in a hospital prevents her society paying her sick benefit, although the society has made no arrangement for any payment to the hospital?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Under Section 12 of the National Insurance Act, the sickness

    355
    benefit is not payable directly to the insured person in the circumstances referred to in the question, but the sum which would ordinarily have been payable may be applied by the society in the provision of surgical appliances or otherwise for the benefit of the insured person.

    UNESTABLISHED POSTMEN.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that un established postmen of twenty-one years' service have been worsened, as regards sick pay, by the passing of the National Insurance Act, namely, from two-thirds pay for six months and half-pay thereafter to two-thirds pay for three months only; and can he rearrange conditions so as to restore the unestablished pay to the position it had occupied?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The question of the modification of the sick pay privileges of existing long service unestablished officers as the result of the National Insurance Act is under consideration. I will communicate with the hon. Member when a decision has been reached.

    SUPPLY OF INSURANCE STAMPS.
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that employers at Hepworth, Diss, have been put to inconvenience owing to the fact that they have been unable to obtain insurance stamps at the post office; and whether he will see that in future a sufficient supply of stamps is kept in stock?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My attention has not been called to any complaint on this subject, but I will have inquiry made in the matter and will communicate with the hon. Member.

    LOST UNEMPLOYMENT BOOK.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the unemployment book belonging to William George Woolley, registered at the Colchester Labour Exchange, has yet been found; if he is aware that when Woolley reported the loss of his book and claimed benefit on 10th March last he was charged 1s. in connection with the lost book, but received no benefit, and that he has called every day since but has been refused benefit pending advice from
    356
    London; and whether steps will be taken to pay the arrears immediately?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The book was lost by the workman, and not by the Labour Exchange, and it was necessary to make inquiries of employers for whom he had worked (three in number) in order to ascertain how many contributions had been paid on his behalf, with a view to calculating the amount of benefit due to him. As a result, benefit was disallowed on the 27th March on the ground that the workman had not satisfied the first statutory condition of proving that he had been employed in each of twenty-six separate weeks in an insured trade. I regret that by an oversight this decision was not communicated to the workman at the time, but it has since been communicated to him, and a new book has been issued to him in place of that lost.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the circular issued in 1908 to old age pension officers for their guidance, embodying a scale of the value of maintenance in urban and rural districts in Great Britain and Ireland, respectively, has been withdrawn; what scale is now operative for the guidance of those officers on this point in Great Britain and in Ireland, respectively; and, in view, of the different treatment of similar cases in the two countries and the denial of Irish officers that they have any such guidance, whether copies of the instruction on which the present practice in Great Britain is based will be sent to all Irish old age pension officers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No scale is in force for general application by pension officers in framing their estimates of the value of maintenance under either the instructions issued to pension officers in 1908 on the passing of the Act or any subsequent amending instructions. The general rule laid down for the guidance of officers in this matter is the same for Ireland as it is for Great Britain, namely, that such value must be estimated by reference to all the facts bearing on the standard of living of the person with whom the claimant resides. I see no need for the issue of any further instructions. All pension officers throughout the United Kingdom have full instructions as to their duties under the

    357
    Old Age Pensions Acts; and I cannot believe that any officer in Ireland or elsewhere would allege that he is without guidance as to the lines he ought to follow n estimating the value of maintenance. Certainly no instance of such a denial has come to my notice.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it not a fact that in 1908 a circular of instructions was issued embodying a scale of the value of maintenance, that this circular was never circulated among the officers in Ireland, and that consequently the practice is different there? Will this be remedied?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As far as I know, the practice is exactly the same. Each case is considered on its merits. Pension officers have the same instructions in Ireland as in England.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House a copy of the instructions?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure that I can promise that. They are confidential instructions between the Treasury and its officers.
    Mr. FLAVIN: That is the whole bone of contention in Ireland. We feel that the officers act unfairly towards the poor people, and we want to know upon what instructions they act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Each case must be considered on its merits. If anything unfair has been done by any officer it is on the merits of the particular case, not on the general instructions.
    Mr. GINNELL: Owing to instructions having been issued in England and not in Ireland the system of pensions in Ireland is entirely different from the system in England; will this be remedied?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Gentleman can bring any case to my notice, I will see that any injustice is remedied.

    Courts (Sittings).
    Mr. MARTINasked the Attorney-General how many days the House of Lords, as a judicial body, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, respectively, sat actually hearing cases during the calendar years 1910, 1911, and 1912, respectively; and how many days in each of the said years the said Courts sat on the same day?
    Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury, for the Attorney-General): The House of Lords sat judicially on eighty-seven days in 1910, 100 days in 1911, and eighty-six days in 1912. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat on seventy-six days in 1910, 101 days in 1911, and 101 days in 1912. The figures asked for in the last part of my hon. Friend's question in the order of the years mentioned are thirty-four, fifty, and thirty-nine.
    Mr. MARTIN: Does the hon. Gentleman think that when this Court sits for about one-quarter of the time, two new judges should be appointed?

    Magistrates (Andover).
    Captain FABERasked whether a committee has been set up for the appointment of magistrates in the borough of Andover; and, if not, when this will be done?
    Mr. GULLAND: The Advisory Committee for the Borough of Andover will be appointed within a few days.

    Miners' Relief Society.
    Mr. SUTTONasked the Home Secretary how many injured persons have been deprived of their weekly compensation allowance owing to the insolvency of the Miners' Relief Society connected with the firm of Andrew Knowles and Sons, Limited, Pendleton, Manchester; whether he can state the number of widows and orphans affected by these cases; and whether any action can be taken to secure to these injured workmen and their dependants the compensation due to them?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have communicated with the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, who tells me that he has no information as to how many persons have ceased to receive compensation allowance through the exhaustion of the funds under the scheme. As regards the last part of the question, I understand the question of the liability of the employer for the payment of compensation, which the County Court Judge has decided in favour of the employer, is likely to be taken to the Court of Appeal.

    Closing of Licensed Premises.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Home Secretary if he will state the number of

    359
    licensed premises closed with compensation under the Licensing Act during the period from 1905 to 1911?
    Mr. McKENNA: As the hon. Member was informed in February last, in the seven years, 1905 to 1911, 7,318 licensed premises in England and Wales were closed with compensation. If the figures for 1912 are added, namely, 849, the total is 8,167.

    Public Meetings (Prohibition).
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Home Office Order prohibiting meetings in Hyde Park and elsewhere; and will he say how long it is since any similar interference with the right of public meeting has been found necessary on this side of the Irish Channel?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is no such Order. The meetings were stopped because, without this being done, the police could not carry out their duty of preserving the peace. The letter which the Commissioner of Police wrote to those concerned, warning them of the action which would have to be taken for this purpose, was published in the newspapers on the 18th, and was read by me the same day in this House. Action has been taken by the police on previous occasions when the same necessity existed—for instance, at Liverpool in 1901, and two years ago at Streatham Common.
    Sir W. BYLES: Has not experience shown that the proclaiming of meetings has exactly the opposite effect to that desired, that it never prevents the meetings being held, and that the more repression there is, the more that which is repressed manifests itself?
    Mr. McKENNA: I dare say that the general argument of my hon. Friend may be true, but, in the circumstances of this particular case, I have no doubt that the measures taken will be effective.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any resolutions of protest from various organisations against this action?
    Mr. McKENNA: I remember one, but I dare say I have had a great many more.

    Nayland Sanatorium.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the result of the consideration given to the application of the proprietors of the Nayland Sanatorium for a Grant for a building for 100 additional beds; whether the application was for the whole cost of such building; and whether any exceptions are to be made to the rule limiting the Grants to three-fifths of the cost?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I may refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to his previous questions on this subject, and inform him that the proposals are still under consideration, and that no decision has been arrived at.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to arrive at a decision?
    Mr. BURNS: No. The matter is one between the Treasury and the Local Government Board.

    County Councillors' Declarations.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the frequent difficulty experienced by county councillors, if travelling abroad after their election, in making within twenty-eight days the required declaration of their acceptance of office before an English magistrate or other stipulated official, and the consequent risk which they run of being obliged to apply to the High Court, at the cost of £50, to regularise their administrative actions, he will consent to extend the time for making such declarations from twenty-eight days to three months?
    Mr. BURNS: Under Section 5 of the County Councils (Elections) Act, 1891, a county councillor is already allowed three months within which he may make his declaration of acceptance of office, but perhaps the hon. Member refers to the declaration as to election expenses, which must be made within twenty-eight days. This time could not be extended without legislation.

    Vaccination Act, 1907.
    Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact

    361
    that Mrs. Wallis, of Plymouth, on 28th January, 1913, before a Plymouth magistrate, made a declaration of conscientious objection under the Vaccination Act, 1907, as her husband was serving on one of His Majesty's ships, in respect to a child born on 5th October, 1912; that, as the vaccination officer refused to acknowledge this, the father of the infant also made a declaration on 1st February aboard his ship before the chaplain, who said he was eligible to sign such declaration, but that this form was rejected by the vaccination officer; and, seeing that where the father of a child is not in a position to make the prescribed declaration the mother is the responsible person so to do, will he notify the vaccination officer to that effect?
    Mr. BURNS: My attention has been drawn to this case, and I am in communication with the vaccination officer with regard to it.

    West Ham Guardians (Outdoor Relief).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that, at the meeting of the East Ham Relief Committee of the West Ham Board of Guardians, held on Tuesday, 8th April, the chairman entered a written protest in the minute book against the action of the auditor's dictum in connection with giving out outdoor relief; that he refused to admit the auditor's right to interfere in any individual cases in granting relief; that he has refused to serve any longer on the East Ham Relief Committee until such time as the auditor proves his legal right; and if he can give any answers to the reason set out for the guidance of the members of the board of guardians as to how they are to decide on relief cases?
    Mr. BURNS: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the question. It is the duty of a district auditor to disallow such payments in the guardians' accounts as are contrary to or not authorised by law. I have already drawn the hon. Member's attention to the Local Government Board's circular of March, 1910. I see no reason at present for issuing any further general instructions as to the administration of outdoor relief.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, when these relief committees are sitting, and have all the information of the relieving officers
    362
    as to the giving of outdoor relief, this surcharging makes it very difficult for them to carry out their duties?
    Mr. BURNS: The difficulty, I think, has been exaggerated by the hon. Member. The relief committees are doing their work, and the relief has been uninterruptedly administered during the last three or four weeks.

    Assurance Companies Act (Returns).
    Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Returns under the Assurance Companies Act (Part A), containing copies of the deposited accounts of life assurance companies for the year ending 31st December, 1911, are not yet available to the public; and whether, seeing that these Returns can now be of no value to the public, he will have them published punctually in future?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I regret that some unavoidable delay has occurred in the publication of the Return under the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, Part A. The Return will be published next week, and I hope to make arrangements that will secure the earlier publication of this Return in future.

    Great Southern and Western Railway Company (Ireland).
    Mr. O'SHEEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received the resolution passed by the Waterford County Council protesting against the action of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company in closing the railway gates at level crossings on the Fishguard and Rosslare line, and thereby causing inconvenience to road traffic; whether he is aware that the gates at several level crossings on this line are constantly closed and locked, not only when trains are due to pass, but during the entire night and for a considerable period during the day; and whether the Board of Trade will send a representative to investigate the matter locally?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have received the resolution, but I should explain that the ordinary law requires that the gates at level crossings of public roads shall be normally closed across the road, but the railway company is bound to provide a suitable person to attend to the opening of the gates.

    Steamship "Titanic" Fund.
    Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the scheme for the permanent administration of the "Titanic" fund which has been approved by the Mansion House Committee, and embodied in a deed of trust, makes provision in that deed of trust for the formation, from any unexpended balance that may accrue, of a permanent fund for the relief of sufferers from future disasters at sea; and, if not, whether such provision will now be made?
    Mr. BUXTON: The Board of Trade have no part in or control over the administration of the "Titanic" fund. I understand, however, that the disposal of the fund for the purpose of relieving the sufferers from the "Titanic" disaster has been worked out on an actuarial basis, with the object that no unexpended balance shall, if possible, ultimately remain. In the event of such a balance unexpectedly remaining, I understand that the question of its application is now under consideration by the Mansion House Committee.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend the formation of a permanent fund.
    Mr. BUXTON: I said I had no standing or control over the fund, and therefore clearly it is inexpedient that I should interfere in the matter.

    Level Crossing Fatality, Yorkshire.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the inquest which was held on Friday last upon two children who were killed at the level crossing, Overton, Yorks; if he is aware that the jury added a rider to the verdict to the effect that the railway company should provide a footbridge or subway, and that the Board of Trade should hold an inquiry as to the conditions of the crossing; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am not yet in possession of full particulars of this accident, but I will look into the matter and communicate with my hon. Friend.

    Trade Boards Act.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the
    364
    Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the low wages prevalent in the trade of tea packing, coffee and cocoa packing, and biscuit making, and also to the variations in the wages paid for similar work; and whether he will include these trades in the operation of the Trades Boards Act?
    Mr. BUXTON: I fully recognise that the trades which I have indicated my intention of including in the Provisional Order about to be made extending the application of the Trade Boards Act are not the only ones which it may be ultimately desirable to bring under the Act. I am giving the matter careful consideration, but I doubt whether it is expedient in the present Order to add to the trades which have already been selected.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of placing the navvies employed by Government Departments under the Trades Boards Act?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid I cannot reply to that question.

    Scottish Prison Commissioners (Inquiry).
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will inquire whether the Scottish Prison Commissioners came to any finding or made any record of opinion which has not been officially laid before the Secretary for Scotland at the inquiry held on the speech of the medical officer of Duke Street Prison, Glasgow, delivered at Edinburgh on 29th January; and if he will then state what was the finding or record, if any?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): No, Sir. I considered the matter carefully at the time.
    Major HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are very considerable rumours in Scotland imputing motives to his action on this subject, and can he not give a full statement of the opinions of the Commissioners?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, I am not aware of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman states; nor am I aware that I am bound to give the same opinion as the officials of my various Departments.

    Petersport, Benbecula.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will endeavour to visit the harbour of Petersport, Benbecula, in the coming autumn with a view of considering on the spot the suitability of this port for improved facilities of communication by sea?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will give the hon. and gallant Member's request my best consideration.

    West Highland Mail Service.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Postmaster-General, having regard to the facts that Glasgow is the terminus of the West Highland Railway and the most important centre of commerce doing business with the Western Highlands and Islands, whether he will invite the postmaster of that city to submit his observations for the improvement of the mail service in those localities?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The mail services to the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland are kept constantly under observation with a view to improvement being effected where practicable, and the views of the Postmaster of Glasgow would be obtained in any case in which it might be desirable. If the hon. Member has in mind any particular locality and will communicate with me on the subject I will have inquiry made.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider what steps can be taken to improve the postal service to and from the Island of Benbecula, having in view the conditions of the present service across the ford from North Uist?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Further consideration is being given to the matter and I will communicate with the hon. Member on the subject.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to give a reply to the scheme forwarded to him by the Uist and Barra Association of Glasgow embodying an improved mail service for those islands; and whether the Secretary to the Post Office for Scotland has been invited to submit any scheme for the improvement of that service?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The scheme suggested by the Uist and Barra Associa-
    366
    tion of a daily service by steamer from Mallaig received careful consideration, and the Secretary to the Post Office for Scotland has instructions to consider and report on any project for the improvement of this and similar services. But I do not see my way to adopt a scheme which involves an increase of expenditure in view of the very heavy cost of the existing service.

    Export of Lambs (Ireland).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he will state the total number of lambs exported from Ireland to Great Britain this year; the Irish ports and numbers, respectively, from which they were sent; whether they got solid or liquid food, or both, before embarkation; how much of each, and at what cost per head; and whether he will give a similar Return for the corresponding period last year?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture, Ireland): This year, up to 19th April, the shipments of lambs from Irish ports to Great Britain were as follows: Belfast, 3; Cork, 179; Drogheda, 56; Dublin, 299; Dundalk, 10; Londonderry, 6; Waterford, 57; total, 610. For the corresponding period last year the figures were: Belfast, 31; Cork, 371; Dublin, 634; Greenore, 33; Londonderry, 27; Waterford, 93; Wexford, 54; total, 1,243. Particulars as to feeding before shipment can at present be given only in respect of Dublin port. The lambs shipped from thence, which have all been weaned lambs, have, while in the inspection yards, been provided with best hay, at at a cost, where the shipping company supply the hay, of ½d. per head. Where owners or their agents arrange as to feeding, cabbage has sometimes been provided as well as hay. The animals get as much as they wish lo eat. Water is also provided.

    Labourers Acts (Ireland).
    Mr. O'SHEEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland for how many of the 7,328 extra half-acres authorised under the Labourers Acts on 31st March, 1912, have advances been made or sanctioned under the Act of 1906, as amended by the Act of 1911; what is the total of such advances and for how many of such extra half-acres; what is the amount of advances applied for but refused, but

    367
    which the Local Government Board authorised the rural councils to borrow from banks or private lenders; and how much of that amount have such councils made arrangements to borrow from banks, and at what rates for repayment of principal and interest?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Wtih the exception of twenty-five extra half-acres, the extra half-acres referred to by the hon. Member have been provided out of loans advanced either by the Board of Works or by the Land Commission. The Local Government Board have no information as regards the total amount of the loans granted in respect of these half-acres, as the loans sanctioned under the Labourers Acts include the cost of the cottages authorised by the schemes, no separate allocations being made in respect of the cost of the extra half-acres. Loans amounting to £576 have been applied for in respect of the twenty-five extra half-acres above referred to, which the Board did not authorise to be issued on land purchase terms, but expressed their willingness to approve of the amount being borrowed in the open market. A loan of £350 has been sanctioned from a bank in respect of fifteen of these half-acres repayable in ten years at 4 per cent. per annum, but no application for a loan in the open market has yet been received in relation to the other ten.
    Mr. SHEEHAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state why the Local Government Board direct that the district councils shall apply in the open market for loans for the extra half-acre?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I should like to have notice of that question. I think I can give a reason why the thing is done.

WAR IN BALKANS.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government have any official information as to the reported fall of Scutari?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that a telegram was received this morning from His Majesty's Minister, Count de Salis, at Cettinje. It was dispatched at three o'clock in the morning and announced the fall of Scutari.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the Prime Minister can give the date when Vote 8 of the Navy Estimates will be taken?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am unable to name a date at present.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks it possible to give a date, because this is a very important matter?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that these fixtures are always made after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and those responsible on the other side.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question as to the business. Last Thursday he informed me that the first Order of the Day would be the Government of the Soudan Loan Guarantee Bill. I find on the Order Paper another Bill put down, the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Bill. I would like to know why the change has been made?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know that I said that the first Order of the Day would be the Soudan Loan Guarantee Bill, but simply announced it as an Order. I did say that I wanted the Committee stage on the Financial Resolution of the Soudan Loan Guarantee, and the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Bill, if not already passed, and a few minor Government Bills. We had some hopes that the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Bill would have passed before to-day, on Monday; but it was distinctly in our minds to take it to-day, and see that it got through to-day. It is rather urgent.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Is not the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman really very inconvenient? All arrangements are made on the assumption that Bills will be taken in the order in which they are put down. If that is not done, what is the object of our asking questions about the Order of Business?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look at the other part of the announcement I gave. I
  384
  said that on Monday we should take the Third Reading of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill, and I hoped we should be able to conclude the remaining stages of the Prisoners Bill. It was our idea that the latter Bill might be got through on Monday. Not being got through, we want to get the Third Reading to-day. I repeat it is rather urgent: that is the view of the Home Office. I do not see why it should take very long. I do not think it will. As to the Soudan Bill, it is a formal stage of the Bill, after all.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that arrangements are made by all parties in accordance with what they expect to be the business of the House. As regards to-day, the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Prisoners Bill might not be through, and it could have been put down as an Order that, under the circumstances, might be taken. It will be impossible to make arrangements unless we can rely upon the business being adhered to.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree; it was an intimation to the different parties, to those interested in the Soudan Loan Bill, and those interested in the Prisoners Discharge Bill. I have no doubt both parties are here. There is no reason why both measures should not be disposed of before 8 o'clock.

  DEATH OF THE KING OF THE HELLENES.

    HER MAJESTY QUEEN ALEXANDRA'S ANSWER TO MESSAGE OF CONDOLENCE.
    Mr. Burt, having been appointed, together with Sir John Lonsdale, Viscount Valentia, and Mr. Eugene Wason, to wait upon Her Majesty Queen Alexandra with a Message of Condolence from this House, appeared at the Bar, and reported Her Majesty's Answer as followeth:—
    I thank you very sincerely for the Message of Condolence which you have presented, and for your sympathy with Me in the great loss I have sustained by the death of My beloved Brother, the King of the Hellenes.

    COTTON FACTORIES (FINES ABOLITION).
    Mr. ALBERT SMITH: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to abolish the system of fining in cotton factories."

    385
    I must apologise to the House for taking ten minutes of its time in presenting this Bill, but the reason I am doing so is because the matter is one of great importance to nearly half a million of cotton operatives in Lancashire. The object of the Bill is to prevent the employers inflicting fines and making deductions from the wages earned by the operatives or requiring any part of those wages to be paid back to the employer or imposing any conditions expressed or implied, which would allow any such deductions to be made. This matter of fining is not a new one in Lancashire. For years past the members of the cotton operatives organisation have sought by every means in their power to get a Bill passed through the House of Commons prohibiting the practice of fining the workers. I had the honour of being on a deputation which waited on Lord Gladstone when he was Secretary of State for the Home Department in 1909, and that deputation consisted of representatives of all the trades in the cotton areas in Lancashire, and so strong was the case made by that deputation that Mr. Gladstone, as he then was, used these words:—
    "You have shown to me that in the cotton industry, and more particularly in the weaving department, the system of fining and deduction is especially irritating, because, by the nature of the business, it is not due to the working people."
    He further said that on account of the Budget being expected to take such a long time, there was then but little hope of a Bill going through that year. I only hope that the present Budget will not stand in the way of this Bill getting a Second Reading. Quite recently a deputation from the Trades Union Congress waited upon the present Home Secretary, and I think I am quite safe in saying that he was equally impressed, as was Lord Gladstone, with regard to the case of the operatives. At any rate I gathered so much. The weavers stand in a very remarkable position in the cotton industry, insomuch as they are the people who are expected to make yarns and webs into a perfect cloth after it goes through several courses of preparation. The cotton goes in the first instance to the card-room workers, and then it is passed on to the spinners. There may be many hon. Members in this House who are aware of the reason for the trouble in the spinning department with regard so the very bad materials supplied to them in the process of making their yarns and webs. It then passes from the spinners to
    386
    the weaving department, and then it goes to dyers. I submit, if the cotton is bad in the first instance, it is not likely to be made good when it has gone through all this process and preparation to make it fit for the loom. There is no bad cotton that can be made into good yarn, and it is very difficult to make inferior yarns into good cloth. When it passes through these processes it has to go to the machinery, and the trend of modern times is that machinery is apt to be over-speedy, and in some cases the machinery is not suited to the particular class of work it has to perform, and only serves to make the burden of the weavers more arduous, and the weaver has to pay more attention to the work. Faults are made in the cloth for which the weaver has no responsibility in any shape or form, and yet the weaver is fined for those faults. This system has been going on for some time. The cotton operatives refused some time ago to be placed under the Truck Act on the ground that they protested against the legalising of fines in any shape or form.
    4.0 P.M.
    The weavers certainly are the chief sufferers, and what was stated in the deputation to the former Home Secretary applies equally to the deputation representing the textile industries which waited upon the present Home Secretary. The carding department, the spinning department, and one or two of the preparing departments, have no system at all. The weavers have these fines inflicted upon them for faults, for which they may or may not be responsible, which may be caused in the preparing department. They have to handle the result of the labour of others, and they have to make yarns into cloths. They cannot be expected to deal with the faults of other people. There is another section of the cotton operatives also fined—that is, the bleachers and dyers. In one instance a firm put up a notice that 5 per cent. would be deducted from the wages earned by the workpeople for faults in their work irrespective of whether they were their faults or not. Every man who went into that work was to have 5 per cent. deducted from his wages whether the damage done was equal to that amount or not. There is then the responsibility for keeping the machinery in repair. The weavers are fined and the aggregate wages are so much less. That is manifestly unfair. It is estimated that £20,000 a year is deducted from the weavers in fines. It is believed by Members of Parli-

    387
    ment in the trade in this House on both sides that the quality of the work will be equally maintained, and there is no desire to shirk the work. The cloth will be equally as good as it is now whether fines are imposed or not. Fines are not inflicted in a town like Bacup, and many firms in Lancashire refuse to adopt the system of fining. I therefore hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading, and thus remove a difficulty which is confronting the weavers employed in Lancashire.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Albert Smith, Mr. Gill, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Snowden, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. Sutton, Mr. Hodge, Mr. Clynes, and Mr. Wardle. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

    DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC COMPANIES AND GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS BILL.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I beg to move "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to restrain directors of incorporated trading companies, contracting in their corporate capacity, concerned in any contract, commission, or agreement made for the public service from being elected or sitting as Members of the House of Commons."
    I introduce this Bill simply to direct, as far as I can, the public attention of the country to one of the most glaring and indefensible anomalies in our whole law of Parliament. An object-lesson illustrating that anomaly was amply furnished last Monday, when the Motion was made and carried that the seat of Sir Stuart Samuel should be vacated. The law of Parliament in reference to contracts is that a gentleman who is a Member of the House of Commons doing business by himself or being a member of a private company, or having any interest to the extent of one penny in any Government contract, thereby absolutely vacates his seat and is rendered ineligible to be a Member of the House of Commons. That law has been strained very considerably in times past. In 1847, Mr. Cowan was interested in a contract with one of the State Depart-
    388
    ments. He knew nothing about it, but he instantly vacated his seat. In 1874, a Member for Falkirk Burghs found that he was interested in some small contracts with the Post Office Department, and he had to vacate his seat. Within the last few days Sir Stuart Samuel, who belongs to a great firm which had entered into a transaction, of which he knew nothing whatever himself, with the Government, which was an extremely beneficial transaction and saved the public funds something like a quarter of a million of money, had to vacate his seat. If, instead of being a private contractor or a member of a private company, a Member of this House is a member of an incorporated trading company, he can have any number of contracts with the Government. As a matter of fact, it is possible for a man to be an incorporated company himself and to contract with himself as head of a Government Department, but the investment of one sixpence in a private company utterly voids the seat. There is no limitation, no definition, and no principle under which this striking anomaly can be in any way justified. The way in which the Samuel case was brought before the House of Commons was somewhat peculiar. The hon. Baronet who first raised the question whether Sir Stuart Samuel was or was not affected in his Parliamentary status by this contract was the junior Member for the City of London. The hon. Baronet who raised that question in the House is himself, under the provisions of an exception to the Contractor's Statute, allowed as a director of an incorporated public company to contract with the Government. The directors of those companies may be Members of Parliament, and the hon. Baronet is himself contracting with the Government every day. He is a director of the Great Northern Railway Company and enters into contracts quite properly with his eyes open with the Government as a Member of Parliament, and his Parliamentary status is not in the slightest degree affected, and yet the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London can put the law in motion to deprive an hon. Member of his seat in this way. I think that is a very strong reason why this law should be abrogated.
    I should be sorry to extend the provisions of the Contractors Act to every shareholder in an incorporated company, but I think we might certainly extend it to the managing directors who enter into contracts, and are kept perfectly safe and allowed to be Members of Parliament,

    389
    and to contract with Government Departments. I sometimes think that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, who is a Friend of mine, need not have gone to this extent, and I think he might have refrained from his desire to cast out the Stuart Samuel mote by thinking of the Banbury beam. I have seen in my own experience a company composed almost exclusively of relatives having relatives in the Cabinet, and they have had contracts again and again with the Government under this Act, and they have been perfectly safe. I have seen on the Treasury Bench a Gentleman who was a Minister of the Crown, who, after he became a Minister of the Crown, was appointed a director of a company, having contracts with the Government, and defending them from the Treasury Bench. It is useful to remember about these things that this contract question materially affects us in the matter of strikes, the railway business, and questions like the coal strike, when it is remembered that there are seventy-seven railway directors in this House, and no fewer than fifty directors of coal mining companies in this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech yesterday naturally defended himself in regard to the increase of armaments. Let me show how the contract business in this House tends to the increase of armaments. I do not wish to introduce a personal matter or say anything offensive to anyone, and I will therefore omit to mention the name of the Gentleman to whom I am referring. I will read a paragraph from the speech which the Gentleman alluded to, made in the House of Commons. He was a director in a large shipbuilding company, and in a Debate dealing with the increase of armaments he read as follows from a letter from a correspondent,
    "My correspondent says: 'I am quite convinced that the German Emperor has an arrangement with Krupps, and, if necessary, that firm could make the complete armaments of ten battleships in any one year—of course, given a few months' time to collect material for them; also Germany could build that number of battleships in a year; in other words, Germany, while gradually creeping up, could suddenly, before we knew where we were, level our Navy.'"
    Within a fortnight after that speech was delivered, we find the directors of this company stating that they had had a very bad year but their prospects were decidedly better than they had been. The chairman recalled the fact that at their last meeting they had just been restored to the Admiralty and War Offices lists of Government contractors. Later on the cheery news appeared in the "Times"
    390
    that the firm with which this hon. Member was connected, had been invited by the Admiralty to tender for one of the "Dreadnoughts" in that year's programme, and eventually they got the "Dreadnought" to build.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Swift MacNeill, Mr. Burt, Sir William Byles, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. William Field, Mr. Joseph King, Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Outhwaite, Mr. John Ward, and Mr. William Young. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 10th June, and to be printed. [Bill 122.]

    MISDESCRIPTION OF FABRICS BILL.
    Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to prevent the misdescription of fabrics."
    The sole object of this Bill is to prevent the sellers of textile fabrics from describing as non-inflammable articles which are not so. The case for the Bill is that a considerable number of people, particularly children, have been and are continually being burnt to death through their clothing catching fire, and that this Bill will do something to lessen the number of these fatalities. Though flannelette is not the only easily inflammable fabric which is worn, its cheapness and comfort cause it to be largely used by the poor, and undoubtedly the wearing of it has been a cause contributory to a large number of accidents and deaths from burning. The practical question naturally arises: Cannot some method of treatment be found by which flannelette and other fabrics can be made practically safe against fire? The answer is that there is such a process, it has been many years on the market, but it is patented and therefore not available to the trade generally, except upon such terms as the owners of the patent rights may prescribe. Naturally, the makers and dealers in ordinary flannelette are, to say the least, not prejudiced in favour of the patented treatment, and, as the fire-proofing costs about one penny per yard extra wholesale and three halfpence or twopence extra retail, it is not surprising that the sale of Dr. Perkin's patent "Non-Flam" has been limited by these circumstances.
    These deplorable burning fatalities still go on. What can be done? A special

    391
    Departmental Committee, known as the "Coroners Committee," inquired into the matter two or three years ago and took evidence. They reported in August, 1910, recommending legislation to make it penal to describe as "safe" flannelette or other textile fabrics which are highly inflammable. That is all that this Bill does. It does not prohibit the sale of anything; it does not require inflammable articles to be marked "dangerous"; it is merely a Bill to prevent inflammable fabrics being marked or represented as "safe against fire." When a similar Bill was introduced last Session the flannelette manufacturers, while agreeing to the desirability of legislation against misdescriptions, objected to the mention of the word "flannelette" in the Bill as unfair to that material. We are now taking the word "flannelette" out of the Bill. It will apply, however, exactly as before, equally to all the textile fabrics. There are other little points in which we have, I hope, successfully tried to meet their objections, and I hope this modest little measure may now go through with everyone's consent. If it does not, it will not be for want of wish and endeavour to meet every possible reasonable objection.
    I have a communication to make to the House which I regard as of the utmost importance. It is generally agreed that the "non-flam" process is the only one which renders cotton fabrics permanently uninflammable, or nearly uninflammable. In an interview which the promoters of the former Bill had with its keenest critics three weeks ago, it was alleged that the owners of the "Non-Flam" patents had in these patents covered every known efficient fire-proofing substance, and that this gave them an unfair advantage. I may say that six months ago I suggested to the owners of these patents that if they could see their way to present the British Patent Rights to the nation they would be doing a fine service to humanity, and would make it easier to secure legislation to protect the lives of many children and old people from the risk of a terrible death. They told me of the great expense to which they had been put in their research work, amounting certainly to many thousands of pounds. In addition to the services of that eminent chemist, Dr. Perkin, they have for over ten years, with the consent of the Manchester University authorities, had an able chemist exclusively employed at that University on
    392
    experiments to improve and, if possible, to cheapen their patent process. But on full consideration of the case I am glad to say that they have accepted my advice. May I quote from a letter of their's? They say they have come—
    "to the decision to accede to your request that we should present to the Government for the public advantage all the rights we hold under the patents …. so far as Great Britain is concerned, for the process known in the flannelette trade by the name 'Non-Flam.'"
    It is a very great happiness to me to be able to make this announcement. It takes away, it seems to me, the last rag of objection to a Bill the only object of which is to prevent the mothers of little children buying articles for their clothing which are more or less dangerous—I do not wish to exaggerate the point—under a false assurance. The real point, as the Departmental Committee say in their Report, is that people are induced to buy a more or less inflammable article under the false pretence that it will not flame and burn.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Theodore Taylor, Dr. Addison, Mr. Boland, Colonel Brocklehurst, Sir F. Cawley, Sir H. Craik, Mr. Ferens, Mr. Hills, Mr. Joynson-Hicks, Sir John McCallum, Mr. Nuttall, and Mr. Albert Smith. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

    PRISONERS (TEMPORARY DISCHARGE FOR ILL-HEALTH) BILL.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I think the Home Secretary might have given the House some explanation why there is such a desperate hurry to get this Bill on the Statute Book. Between the earlier and later stages of the Bill a whole fortnight was allowed to elapse without anything having been done. To-day, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the general expectation was that the Soudan Grant would take priority over other business, and it was therefore a matter of surprise to find this Bill had premier place. I presume the Bill is intended to be retrospective, and that it is to be made applicable to prisoners now undergoing sentence.

    393
    If that be so, it probably explains the hurry of the Home Office to get the Bill through. There are one or two prisoners who are still on hunger strike and are being subjected to forcible feeding in consequence. One of these is Mr. Hugh Franklin, and there is still a very long period of his sentence unexpired. If current rumours be true, the condition of his health is very precarious, and in all likelihood the desire of the Home Secretary is to prolong the term this young man is undergoing by releasing him under this Bill till he has recovered some of his strength again and can return to prison to re-engage in the same conflict as he has waged so successfully up to the present. That may or may not be the case. The Home Secretary perhaps will be able to tell us.
    I rise to make a final protest against the Bill, because in its provisions it is unnecessarily harsh and cruel even for the purpose for which it is intended. There was a general expectation when the Bill was first spoken of and introduced that the Home Office was seeking an alternative to forcible feeding. We have learned in the course of the discussions that what is offered to us is not an alternative but an addition to the powers possessed by the Home Office in regard to forcible feeding. One of the Sub-sections of the Bill which met with most opposition in the House and which would have been defeated if it had gone to an open vote, was that in which it is laid down that the period of liberation on licence is not to count as part of the sentence. The result of this may be, and probably will be, that the period of the sentence will be indefinitely prolonged. When a prisoner has reached the point at which further detention is dangerous to life, the Home Office may liberate him or her on licence. The period over which the licence is to extend will be stated in it, but that period can be extended at the will of the Home Secretary.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Only upon the application of the prisoner.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: In the event of the prisoner's health not being restored, or the prisoner believing that his health is not restored, application may be made, and the period of the licence may be extended as a consequence. The period of the licence therefore may double, treble, or even quadruple the original length of the sentence. I submit that is in viola-
    394
    tion not only of the practice hitherto obtaining, but also of the law of the land, because, disguise the fact as we may, the period of the licence is as much a term of restraint as the imprisonment itself. Certain conditions are to be laid down. The licensee in all probability will be kept under close police surveillance, and will therefore be as much in custody as if confined within, the walls of the prison. Further, any failure to comply with the terms of the licence renders the licensee liable to arrest without warning. It is very obvious that great dangers lurk behind a proposal of this kind. Charges may be made against a licensee on the strength of which rearrest may take place. There is to be no opportunity so far as the Bill provides of any examination of those charges, nor any opportunity of testing their truthfulness, and it is quite easily conceivable that in the case of prisoners against whom the authorities have special malice considerable hardship and danger might be inflicted by trumped-up charges, and that rearrest of the licensee might take place before recovery. Further, I object to the Bill because it increases very considerably the secret powers of the police authorities. It enables things to be done which, under the existing law, would not be possible. I have no desire and no will to enlarge the powers of the police authorities in a way and in a manner which will enable them to act in the dark and without that publicity to which all charges against individuals should be subject. Finally my objection to the Bill is that it will prove perfectly futile. The time spent in considering it has been a waste of Parliamentary time. If the powers of the Home Office have been defied, and successfully defied, by the particular class of prisoner against whom this Bill is directed, what reason is there to suppose that this new law would have any better results? It will provide fresh opportunities for this type of prisoners to carry on their warfare against the existing law. The fight they are making, and for which they are being imprisoned, is purely for a Parliamentary vote. They refuse to obey the laws concerning property until the vote has been conceded to them. They refuse to obey the laws in prison for the same reason, and this Bill, which is now about to pass into law, will provide fresh opportunities and fresh occasions for the defiance of the law. Sooner or later the Government will be empowered to recognise that the only way of

    395
    dealing with this class of prisoner is to remove the grievance which leads to the trouble. If the Cabinet had spent the time in passing a Bill to confer votes on women which they have spent on this measure, the need for this Bill, so far as they are concerned, would have passed away. If the Home Secretary is hoping to secure compliance with the law under the terms of this measure, if he is hoping to allay agitation, if he is hoping to break the spirit of the women who are fighting so heroically, however mistakenly, then he is living in a fool's paradise. If I can find any Member in this House to tell with me, I shall divide against the Bill as a protest against the time of Parliament being wasted on a futile measure—time which could have been applied more usefully in redressing the grievance which made the Bill necessary.
    Mr. MUNRO: If one can show that there is a disease requiring a remedy, and that the remedy suggested is an appropriate one, then I should think that the case for the Third Reading of this Bill would be practically made out. With regard to the first of these points, I do not suppose there is any sharp divergence of opinion in the House. All will agree that there is a disease which affects the whole body politic at the present time. To drop metaphor, and to speak frankly, the present situation is quite intolerable and requires drastic remedy. That being so let us consider what the situation is. So far as the punishment of crime is concerned matters are inverted at the present moment. Under ordinary circumstances, when crime is detected and proved, the person who has committed the crime has to expiate it for a term prescribed judicially. At the present time, although a crime is committed, detected, and proved, the prisoner, so far from serving the term judicially imposed, is herself, in many instances, the judge of the exact time at which the prison gates shall be opened and she shall be released. That is certainly a startling innovation in our procedure. It seems to me it is no answer in that connection to say that the motives of the prisoners are entirely excellent, justifiable, and even laudable; that is to seek to apply an old exploded doctrine that the end justifies the means. It is small consolation to a man whose house has been burnt down to be assured that the lady who lighted the match was animated by most laudable motives. The only time
    396
    when motive is relevant, and when it is duly considered, is when the original sentence is imposed on the prisoner. When once the sentence has been imposed, the motive having been duly considered, then at no subsequent stage has it any relevant bearing on the matter.
    The consequences of the present situation are very grave indeed. In the first place, it is grossly unfair to prisoners who loyally implement and expiate the consequences of their crime. I speak as a supporter of Women Suffrage when I say that, so far as the militant section is concerned, the frequency with which they are enabled to secure relief is not fair to those prisoners who expiate their crime in the ordinary way. But there is another and more serious consequence, and that is the effect on the criminal community. They learn readily that there are ways and means whereby they can commit crime and evade its consequences, and the situation consequently is one which strikes a blow at the social fabric of the State. If that is the situation, let me consider the remedy suggested. What is the Bill which the House is asked to read a third time? I am quite uninfluenced by any poor, cheap criticism of the measure turning upon the description of it. It has been called panic legislation. It has been termed a "Cat-and-Mouse Bill." I am not in the least influenced by those ironical and irreverent descriptions of the measure. It is easy to be ironical without being helpful. It is easy to devise a witty phrase, but it is not so easy to devise a useful remedy. The question is whether this remedy is or is not useful.
    I am influenced by three considerations in voting for the Third Reading of the Bill. In the first place, I attach weight, and so too, I imagine, does the House, to the fact that the Home Secretary says, "I am confronted with a situation in which I find myself, under the existing machinery, legislative and administrative, powerless, and I assure the House that if they place this weapon in my hands, my deliberate judgment is that it will enable me to deal satisfactorily with the situation." When the right hon. Gentleman gives that deliberate assurance on the authority of his office, it will I think go a long way to induce the House to accede to his request that this Bill should be read a third time. There is another consideration, and it is this: So far as one has heard, and I have listened

    397
    to the whole Debate in this House from beginning to end, there is no competitive suggestion, no competing alternative presented from any quarter with any general acceptance, to this Bill. There has been a singular sterility of suggestion on the part of those who oppose it. A policy of negation is a policy of despair. To sit with folded hands in such a situation is a course condemned alike by experience and sentiment. That being the situation, and this measure being put forward on the responsibility of the Home Office, confronted as they are with what I may venture to call a grave and menacing situation, the Bill deserves respectful consideration and support.
    Lastly, there is this consideration, that the Bill is reasonable in its terms. In the first place, there is no doubt it will vindicate the law, and that, after all, is not a small matter in these times. Sooner or later, under the provisions of this Bill, it will be reasonably certain that the sentences passed by the Court will be implemented by those on whom they have justifiably been imposed. That is one benefit which will result from the passing of this Bill. Furthermore, it may reasonably be hoped that the effect of the Bill will be to diminish the sort of crime against which it is aimed. Again I speak as a supporter of Women Suffrage, but not as a millitant suffragist. To my mind, at the present time, one of the attractions of these crimes is that those who commit them are able to defy the law. I think I can make out that proposition. If all these women wanted to do was merely to commit a crime as a protest against the system of which they complain, then, having committed it, they would serve the sentence imposed on them. It is because, under the present system, they are not only enabled to commit the crime, but to successfully defy the law, that they find a certain amount of attraction in the policy. In the future the possibility of that will be denied to them, because, having committed the crime, they will sooner or later have to serve the sentence imposed on them, and, if that be so, it is reasonable to suppose, when the chief attraction of the present system is removed, that this type of crime will diminish. I am sure it is the wish of everybody in every part of the House that that should be so. For these reasons I shall have great pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of this Bill, which is designed,
    398
    and honestly designed, to meet a difficult situation in the reasonable way.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member who has just spoken is doubtless qualifying for the position of one of the Law Officers of the Crown, because, throughout the discussions on this Bill, he has been the official spokesman for the Government. Not only on this Third Reading, but at all stages, he has acted as the sponsor of the Bill. He has used very correct language on this particular occasion; certainly it was not the language which enabled him to become a Member of this House.
    Mr. MUNRO: I have not the slightest idea to what the hon. Baronet is referring.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I was referring to the Blatchford creed and to the charge made against the hon. Gentleman's opponent that he had embraced that creed. I was referring to an article in the "Daily Mail" and to a long correspondence in the "Times."
    Mr. MUNRO: I made no charge.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The charge was made by the hon. Gentleman's supporter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!") I shall do nothing of the kind. The hon. Member stated that the situation required a drastic remedy. He also said it was not fair to prisoners who "loyally expiated their crime." Are we to take it from him that prisoners convicted of these crimes go to prison for the purposes of enjoyment? What does he mean by the words "loyally expiate their sentences"? I wish to enter my protest against the Title of this Bill. I have been informed by a learned Member of this House that the Title is so drawn as to prevent any Amendment of a substantial character being made in it. The Bill, in fact, has been so framed as to gag the House of Commons. The House is being compelled merely to register the will of the Executive of the day, and that is apparently what the House of Commons is now expected to do. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office, in the course of the Debate on the Committee stage, referred to the fact that when hon. Members voted without the party Whip we got the real views of the House. It has been suggested that I stated, inaccurately, that the hon. Gentleman had asserted that public opinion was opposed to the particular measure he was advocating. The hon. Gentleman said he never stated

    399
    anything of the kind. I have looked up the report in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I find that the whole burden of his speech was that a certain Bill which he was advocating was, in the opinion of the authorities he quoted, undesirable. I have the words here.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): All I said about public opinion outside the House was that it was languid.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It is perfectly true the Under-Secretary used the word "languid," but he also adduced the opinions of Committees to whom this question had been referred, and he gave the opinions of other people in the profession. If the party Whips had not been put on, the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Bill would not have passed the House. No free opportunity has been given to the House on this Bill. We were gagged on the Title, we were gagged in Committee, the time was restricted, and when we came to the House, party Whips were put on preventing the House from giving free expression to its views. Hon. Members opposite have given a tacit support to the Government. I do not know why they have helped to get the Government out of the bog into which they floundered, but in their usual stupid way they have given the Government assistance. In my opinion this Bill is a cruel Bill. It will be ineffective for the purpose for which it is introduced. The House has to recognise that up to the present time the women have defeated the law and defeated the Government. It is said that subscriptions to the suffrage movement are falling off in view of the criminal proceedings of certain women, and that if the strong arm of the law is enforced this movement will break down. I do not share that view. In this measure no effective steps are taken to ensure that the law will be enforced. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) has put forward no alternative as to what should be done in the case of people who deliberately break the law and then attempt to evade it. On the other hand, I have an alternative. In the "Times" to-day there is a letter from a distinguished lawyer, Sir Harry Poland, on the doctrine of Homicidium sui-ipsius. Although I do not question his great authority on the legal construction of the law, the opinion he gives is the opinion of the Government, and he comes out as
    400
    a strong defender of the Home Secretary. He says:—
    "Will the Solons of St. Stephen's who denounce forcible feeding as 'barbaric' and as 'repugnant to the minds of all decent people' (which I also think it is) endeavour to get an Act passed to prevent forcible feeding, and thus to allow lunatics and obstinate prisoners to starve themselves to death without being interfered with by those who have the care and custody of them?"
    Nothing could be further from the truth than a statement of that character. There is no one in the House who would not say that in the case of people of weak minds who refuse, owing to insanity, lo take food, that every step should be taken to see that they are forcibly fed if it is necessary to do so.
    Mr. POINTER: Why?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Does the hon. Member suggest that people who are of weak mind or bad health and who cannot take food should be allowed to die?
    Mr. POINTER: Surely one case is as bad as the other!
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Does the hon. Member suggest that the man who has temporarily lost his sanity should be allowed to die because he has to be forcibly fed? If the man were allowed to die, a crime would be committed against civilisation. That is not the case we are considering. The case we are considering is a conspiracy deliberately entered into by women, and openly stated by them on their platforms, to adopt what are termed starvation tactics. They say they are going to break the law, after they have broken it they are going to prison, and when they are in prison they are going to walk out again because of what they term starvation tactics. The starvation strike may be all very well in its way. What I say is that if people of sane mind deliberately enter into a conspiracy to defeat the law they must take the consequences of their wrongdoing, and if they refuse to take food which is given to them, and if death ensues, they have nobody but themselves to thank, and no responsibility should lie on a Minister of the Crown. That is a view the House will not take, because it is said that there would be a revulsion of public feeling in this country if persons died in prison. I do not believe that there is in this country such slobbery sentimentalism. I believe the country has far too much good common sense in this matter than to show any revulsion of feeling in favour of a

    401
    person who deliberately sets out to break the law, and who, if the law is enforced, dies. I do not say that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and those who think with him, have any respect for the law. Of course, it does not matter twopence to them what happens. The hon. Member made various attacks on the Bill, but did not put forward a single suggestion for dealing with the problem. He simply condemned the attitude taken up by the Government. I am told, rightly or wrongly, that this is not the Bill of the Home Secretary, but the Bill of the Cabinet as a whole. I do not know whether or not that is correct. I suspect that the truth is that the Bill has been framed by permanent officials, fathered by the Home Secretary, and then fathered again by the whole Cabinet.
    5.0 P.M
    I have said there are two courses that may be taken. I am a strong supporter of giving votes to women, because I think the principle is a right one, although I do not think the House of Commons ought to be coerced by any form of militancy into giving votes to anyone. The only course is to give votes to women or to see that the law is upheld. Is this Bill going to uphold the law? The hon. Member who was the spokesman for the Government said that where the evil was great the remedy must be drastic. This remedy is a cruel one. Take the case of Mrs. Pankhurst. An hon. Member opposite asks what we are going to do in the case of people who come down in Rolls-Royce cars, and whether we are going to treat them differently from working people. I think that is the last argument that ought to have been advanced. The women who have made the sacrifices that the militant women have made on behalf of the cause in which they earnestly and honestly believe cannot be compared with the class of people who ride in Rolls-Royce cars. I have always thought that the cars are those of the vulgar rich and the idle rich. The Home Secretary stated that he could not undertake to discharge any prisoner who at some time or other might refuse to take food, that there must be discretion exercised, and that it would be most improper to release a prisoner who declared an intention to break the law, not in any trivial way, but by a great destruction of property or life. I do not quarrel with that statement of the Home Secretary. I think it is an admirable statement of the case as a whole. What is the alternative? The
    402
    right hon. Gentleman is placed in this position. The Law Officers of the Crown, I understand, have stated that under the existing law if a prisoner refuses to take food and is forcibly fed, no responsibility attaches to the Home Secretary, but, on the other hand, if the Home Secretary takes no steps whatever to see that the person is forcibly fed, then if the prisoner dies he might be indicted. I have had the opportunity of talking to-day with a gentleman who was formerly a very distinguished judge, and he told me he very much doubted whether the law is as has been stated in this House time after time, and as is stated in the "Times" to-day by Sir Harry Poland. If the law really is that forcible steps must be taken to prevent a person from committing suicide, then, as I understand the position, any person who sees another attempting to commit suicide must take forcible steps to prevent him from doing so Owing to the tactics adopted by the militants, an entirely different position has been created from that which has yet arisen in the whole history of criminal law. The question is very much disputed by lawyers. I have not a shadow of doubt in my own mind that if the Home Secretary did not forcibly feed a prisoner, and that prisoner were to die, no jury of his fellow-countrymen would find that he was guilty of any offence in not having undertaken the barbaric treatment of forcibly feeding a prisoner. The hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) very properly said this Bill gives additional powers to the Home Secretary. Not only can a prisoner be taken out of prison and brought back to prison, but she can be, as well, forcibly fed, as she can under the existing law. I feel sure there is a very large amount of public feeling, not only in the House but in the country, against the whole principle of the forcible feeding of sane people. The hon. Member (Mr. Pointer) would, I understand, not even feed a person who through some misfortune happened to lose his senses for a few days. I should, as any reasonable man would; but I think throughout the country there is a feeling that this is not a right act to commit on any prisoner, and it is a horrible process which the servants of the Crown are asked to carry out. If Ministers themselves or the Home Office officials had the duty of forcibly feeding the prisoners I am certain we should have no Bill of this character before us. But

    403
    what is forcible feeding under the law as the hon. Member is going to administer it? Take the case of Mrs. Pankhurst. This poor woman committed a crime which she would have expiated in the ordinary way by penal servitude if the law had not been allowed to fall into disrepute. When she committed that crime she knew perfectly well that she had only to adopt starvation tactics and she would be able to obtain her release, but if at the time she knew, and the suffragettes who committed these crimes had known that no starvation tactics would have availed for their purpose, the crimes would not have been committed and the present state of affairs would not be as it is to-day.
    An HON. MEMBER: They have committed crimes since.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: They have committed them knowing that under the law, weakly administered as it has been, they were merely going to prison to march out again. Though I am in favour of punishment I am not in favour of torturing a prisoner to death. This Bill should properly be entitled "a Bill to torture a person who refuses to obey the law." Mrs. Pankhurst is convicted of a crime and goes to prison stating that she is going to defeat the law. She goes in there knowing that she is either going to be forcibly fed or is going to be allowed to remain in prison for such a time that her health will sooner or later break down and she will have to be removed. She adopts the second procedure and takes no food, and comes to such a state that the officials of the prison say it is necessary that she should be released. She is released and taken to a nursing home on a licence.
    Mr. McKENNA: What would you have done?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I have said time after time what I should have done. I should have left her where she was. I should have said, "It is no use you thinking you are going to remain so many days in prison and at the end of that time you are going to be released. If you do not take food you must take the consequences and die." I hope I have made my position quite clear about the matter. What is the second stage of Mrs. Pankhurst? She is in a nursing home. I saw in the Stop Press news to-day that she was slightly better but still in a very serious state of health. When she recovers she will return
    404
    to prison and will again refuse to take food, and her health will then become worse. She will stay in prison for so many days and will then be released again and go back to the nursing home. Is this conflict going on with this poor, sick woman, who is determined to defeat the law and to defeat the provisions of this Bill? You are going therefore, if you enforce the law in this way, to kill this woman step by step and stage by stage, whereas the Government should have said from the commencement, "We are not going to be deterred or frightened by the fact of you people saying you are going on hunger strike. Food is there and if you do not take it you must take the consequences." I addressed a very large meeting of my Constituents on this question only a few days ago and I had an opportunity yesterday of seeing a number of trade unionists at a deputation in Yorkshire, and I put the same question to them that I put to the House to-day, "What would you do in the event of a person deliberately setting the law at defiance and refusing to take food?" Many of my Constituents are miners, who, after all, are not a class of people who are devoid of human kindness, and at very large meetings which I have attended there has not been a single dissentient voice against the view that the proper course to take was to give the prisoner food, and if she does not take it she must suffer the consequences. So far from a revulsion of feeling, if the law was enforced it would not make for the advancement of the Women Suffrage movement if a woman died. That is foreign to the good sense of the British people. There has never been any Bill which has been more distasteful to me or on which I feel stronger than I do on this measure. I do not like to see the House of Commons made ridiculous. I do not like to see a Bill passed which I know must inevitably break down and result in failure, which, when all is said and done, will not in the least advance the maintenance of law and order.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I have attended the whole of the Debates on this extremely interesting Bill, and I do not at all agree with the hon. Baronet in the comments he has uttered upon the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Munro), for it has seemed to me that the contributions which that hon. Member has made to the Debate have been by no means among the least interesting. I do not see eye to eye with either of the hon. Members who have

    405
    spoken. I recognise, as I think everyone in the House must, that the Home Secretary was in great difficulty and that he had to do something. I admit that during the whole of the Debate no alternative suggestion has been made at all except that of the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) that these suffragette ladies should be deported. I am very much afraid the Bill will not affect the object which the Government have in view, because the gist of the Bill seems to me to lie in the safeguards which ought to exist for seeing that when one of these prisoners is temporarily discharged the conditions of the discharge are observed. If they are not drastically enforced, if the Bill does not contain a proper means of enforcing them, I am afraid it will offer nothing but temptation to prisoners in future to do the very thing which the Home Secretary desires to prevent. If you put a man or a woman in prison, and it is understood that by going without food for a certain time they may be released for ten days or a fortnight, with no supervision, under conditions which it is no one's duty to see are observed, I cannot help thinking you are offering great temptation to all criminals in future, because the serious part of this Bill is that it does not deal only with this emergency, but is going on to the Statute Book for ever and is applicable to criminals of all classes. I am very much afraid, if you cannot enforce the conditions and be sure that during this period of temporary discharge the prisoner observes them and comes back to prison at the expiration of the time, you are offering a temptation to refuse food, instead of doing what you can to stop it.
    I do not think that the means of enforcing these conditions which you are going to put on the back of the order of discharge are anything like adequate. What will happen is that you will release the prisoner, she will be sent home or to a nursing home, and will remain there under no sort of supervision except that, I suppose, some general order will be given to detective officers to keep an eye on them, and they will remain there for about a fortnight. If a considerable period before the end of that time they are fortunate enough to recover their health—and it is wonderful how a change of diet and surroundings will affect their health—you have no security that they will not leave the place to which you have allowed them to go and commit some fresh attempt, of which you may or may not discover the author.
    406
    Therefore I am very much afraid that unless the Home Office can devise some way to really secure the observance of the conditions on the back of the order, the Bill will do more harm than good. It is lamentable to see cases happening like that of Mrs. Pankhurst, who was let out the other day on a licence with conditions endorsed on the back, one of which was that she should produce the licence whenever it was asked for. She tore it up on the way and distributed the pieces to her faithful followers in the street. That makes the public laugh at the administration of the law. They laugh at the Home Secretary—that he will probably survive—but that he should bring the whole administration of the law into contempt is an unfortunate thing from the point of view of the State. The first aim of all civilisation is to have a system of just laws purely administered and properly enforced. If you do not enforce the law properly, however purely it may be administered, you will bring the whole thing into contempt.
    There is a second provision in the Bill which I confess I fear. It is rather a consideration in the opposite direction. There is power in this Bill, when a person has been released on an order of discharge, to rearrest him and bring him back to prison without apparently authority being given by the Secretary of State, and without the issue of a warrant by any of the ordinary officers of the law. It seems to me that that is a very dangerous thing. When this was commented upon the other day in Committee the Home Secretary's answer was that if somebody was rearrested erroneously and taken back into custody he would have the right of action for false imprisonment. The promise to a person in that position, that he would have the right of action for false imprisonment, is to add to the horrors of his sentence, and if that is all the right hon. Gentleman can say, it is poor consolation. He will remember some instances, when he was practising at the Bar, where actions for false imprisonment came before the Courts, and he will remember also that, before a person can succeed in such an action, he must prove that someone, in making the false arrest, acted without reasonable or probable cause. In the cases which will arise under this Bill the policeman will act upon the information of someone in the position of common informer. One of the conditions, for instance, to be endorsed on the order of discharge is that the person shall return to her house and

    407
    not leave that house without the assent of the Secretary of State. Let us suppose that one of these ladies on being released returns to No. 5, Paradise Road, that she afterwards moves into No. 7, which is next door, and that, having done so, somebody goes and informs the local policeman, whose shins may be still smarting, or the scratches on his cheeks may not have completely healed. The policeman says, "The lady was released on condition that she would remain at No. 5, and now she is at No. 7. That is contrary to one of the conditions of the licence, and I will rearrest her." Under the Bill he is perfectly free, on his own ipsi dixit, to rearrest her, because he believes she has broken her licence. Then she is rearrested and taken back to prison at once. That really is a very dangerous power to entrust to any policeman. Naturally the Home Secretary would protect the police. Still, that is a serious departure from the common law of England. There is no right to arrest and imprison a person without the authority of somebody. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will carefully safeguard the power of rearrest, so that no policeman shall be able to say that the conditions of a licence have been broken, without the authority of some responsible official. I think it should be the Secretary of State, but if not the Secretary of State, it should be the governor of the prison or somebody in authority.
    The only remaining consideration I wish to put before the House is that this Bill deals with prisoners of all kinds. I am bound to say that I do not attach very much importance to the future operations of the Bill in regard to prisoners, other than those known as suffragists. I read the other day that there was in prison a burglar who was encouraged by the spirited example of the ladies to hunger strike. He thought he would try it also, but his endurance lasted only forty-eight hours. He ultimately gave in, and the only effect was an attack of indigestion resulting from the speed at which he ate when he began again to take food. As the Home Secretary found himself unable to accept any of the Amendments which were moved in Committee, we have been deprived of a Report stage. I hope he will tell us that he is going to devise proper means by which people shall be protected against being improperly brought back to prison when they have been released on licence.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hume-Williams) has always had serious doubts about the merits of this Bill, but, if he will allow me to say so, he has always been scrupulously fair in the arguments he has used. He asks me now what security the Bill offers that the conditions contained in the order of release will in fact be observed. As I have said from the start, that is a point on which I can give no security. In no circumstances would any Minister ever give security of that kind. But the hon. and learned Member is not really seeking a true alternative to this Bill when he puts that question to me. At the present time I have three classes of prisoners to deal with. I have the prisoners who go to prison and take their food, either in the ordinary way or after a slight protest—prisoners who go through their sentences without difficulty. These prisoners I can deal with already. I have the second class of prisoners, who altogether decline to take their food, but who are physically strong enough to permit of their being forcibly fed. Those prisoners are, as a rule, forcibly fed. I have the third class of prisoners to deal with, namely, those who decline to take food, and whose condition of health is such that the doctors advise me that any attempt to feed them forcibly might be attended with serious risks to their health. With the latter class of prisoners I have no alternative at present except to discharge from prison. If the hon. and learned Member will think of the two classes of prisoners who at present cannot be brought back if released, I think he will agree with me that I could not give the security which he asks, and that the request is not really ad rem.
    Take the last class of prisoners first. The prisoner I have to release knows that she cannot be forcibly fed at all. The only condition on which I can release her under the power which I have got at present is that the release should be absolute. I can exercise the prerogative of pardon and discharge her absolutely from prison. With regard to that class of prisoners, whether I can always enforce the conditions of the order of release or not, I am, at any rate, somewhat better off than I am at the present time. In the case of such a class, I am able to enforce the term of the sentence, and I think I will be able to do so. But as to whether I can give a guarantee that no such prisoner

    409
    will escape me, I say that I cannot and nobody else can, give a guarantee of that kind. The hon. and learned Member must see that the fact that I have power to release such a prisoner temporarily instead of giving an absolute discharge, is a power which enables me to go somewhat nearer the due enforcement of the sentence of the Court, than I am able to do at the present time. So much for that class of prisoners. I now come to deal with the second class, namely, those who are strong enough to be forcibly fed, who, the doctors advise me, may be forcibly fed with safety, and who, at the present time, simply with the view to the enforcement of the sentence of the Court, are forcibly fed in prison. How will this Bill enable me to deal with such prisoners? I think everyone in the House will agree with me, except perhaps the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham)—even he strongly objects to forcible feeding—that if we can enforce the sentence of the Court without forcible feeding it is much better to do so. When these persons refuse food I have no alternative at present except to feed them forcibly or give them an absolute discharge, but in future I shall be under no such necessity. I can give them a temporary discharge with the hope, the expectation, and, I think, the certainty, that I shall be able to bring them back to prison and enforce the full sentence of the Court. Suppose I cannot bring them back at once on the expiration of the order of release, I shall be able to catch them sooner or later. Either they will go out of the jurisdiction altogether, in which case we will not have to endure any more suffragist troubles from them, or sooner or later I shall catch them, and they will have to undergo the sentence of the Court.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: They may break the conditions of the licence in the meantime.
    Mr. McKENNA: How would we be worse then in that matter than we are now? The hon. and learned Member must compare the present condition of the law with the condition under which I shall be able to act when this Bill passes. I shall be unable to secure in every case that the prisoner will return voluntarily to prison at the expiration of the licence. I never could guarantee that, and nobody could, but under this Bill I shall have a better chance of securing the carrying out of the order of the Court than I have at the
    410
    present time. That is why I cannot give any security that the conditions of the licence will always be observed. I believe that under this Bill there will be better respect for the orders of the Court than there has been heretofore. The hon. and learned Member also took a point with regard to the matter of rearrest without warrant. I think he has taken an untenable position in that matter. After all, the dangers of which he spoke of one of these persons being wrongly arrested before the expiration of the licence by any policeman are dangers to which every citizen of the country is liable at any moment. The only remedy that any citizen has got in such circumstances is an action for false imprisonment. I cannot conceive why any of these released persons is entitled to better security from false imprisonment than any other person. It is quite true that you cannot have a good defence in most cases in an action for false imprisonment unless you can show that the person was arrested on a warrant. But in cases of this kind it is vital, if I am to effect the hon. and learned Member's first object, secure the enforcement of the conditions on which the order of release was made, that I should be able to arrest an escaping prisoner at the moment that I can catch her. After all, the one thing I want to do, the only order I want to enforce, is to bring her back to prison on the expiration of the term for which the order is given. The hon. Member supposes that she escapes from her present abode and goes somewhere else. If we can trace her or discover her perhaps by chance, are we to arrest her at once?
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Who is "we"?
    Mr. McKENNA: The prison authorities. The police will be acting under the direction of the prison authorities. No constable is ever willing to arrest on his own initiative. Naturally he knows that if he makes a false arrest he is going to suffer materially. The ordinary experience is that the public find that constables are not quite willing enough to arrest.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Would he be the defendant in an action?
    Mr. McKENNA: The case which the hon. and learned Member put was that somebody would go to a constable and inform him that a particular person was a released prisoner who had broken the con-

    411
    ditions under the order, and that the constable then and there would be willing to arrest. Surely he is entirely mistaken in that. No constable would arrest in a case of that kind without an order from his superior officer, and in every case where an arrest of the kind was made notification would be given in the ordinary routine of business to the superintendent of the district in which the woman was living to effect her arrest. The hon. and learned Member is in complete error as to the danger which he thinks might occur. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. B. Markham) has returned, and I only want to give the House one warning against him. Hon. Members must not take what he says too seriously. No one has to sit through more strong language of my hon. Friend than I have, but I know myself, and intimate friends of the hon. Baronet tell me also, that he is a man of the warmest and kindest feeling. But he uses language without attaching any serious meaning to it, and you have only to listen to a single speech from him, and to hear the repeated contradiction, both in argument and in expression, in any single speech that he makes, to be aware that we must not attach too much importance to what he says; and my hon. Friend will bear no more malice to the hon. Baronet than I will.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not want whitewashing by you.
    Mr. McKENNA: There only remains the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr, but, as he is no longer in his place, I do not know that I need trouble the House any further in the matter.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I am entirely in favour of what the Home Secretary has said, and I think from the opposition of the hon. Member for Merthyr that it will be a very effective Bill, and that it is because he believes that it will be effective that he desires to oppose it at this stage. I would like to call attention to one matter. The use of the prerogative of pardon in cases of this kind is an abuse of constitutional practice, and cannot be justified. I presume, and the Home Secretary has said so more than once, that it is only the extraordinary necessities involved in his difficulties which could possibly allow him to suggest it as a constitutional practice. Prison discipline is interfered with by the release
    412
    of a prisoner unconditionally. I have a very strong feeling on that point indeed, because if the Home Secretary does stretch what is, after all, only constitutional prerogative, so as in effect to defeat a sentence and interfere with the ordinary administration of the criminal law, nothing could possibly be worse as regards the conduct of a Minister responsible for administration of justice in this country. I think that he is quite justified in saying that this Bill does give a reasonable alternative. I do not say how far it will be effective. I believe that it will be effective, but the alternative is this: instead of abusing the constitutional prerogative of pardon he can allow the condition only of a provisional release, and the sentence in the long run has to be carried out, which it never could be if you exercised the prerogative of pardon. I think that that is clearly right. If you are to have criminal law in this country, nothing can be worse than that after sentence is passed in the ordinary way, it should be possible for a prisoner, in any conditions, to flout the sentence and get rid of it, and practically oblige the Home Secretary to exercise the prerogative, which, on constitutional grounds never ought to be exercised in such cases as that.
    As regards the question of arrest, I do not believe in the difficulty suggested by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hume-Williams), and I do not think that he is quite right in the way he stated it. I think that the Home Secretary was quite justified in saying that there would be no greater probability of improper use of arrest in this case than in any other case where the subject was liable to arrest on suspicion of a crime, or where a crime has been committed. I thoroughly agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Munro), that when dealing with a convicted prisoner we no longer consider what the motives are. The question of motive, so far as it is relevant at all, is taken into consideration, as we know, when apportioning the sentence. That is done by everyone who has to exercise the criminal law jurisdiction, but after sentence has been passed—take such a case as arson—it cannot be right to consider that the particular house was burned down, and burned down feloniously owing to a motive with which one might possibly sympathise if one could isolate it from the criminal act with which it was

    413
    associated, and if we are once to allow any principle of this kind to come in, namely, that after sentence is passed it is open to the Home Secretary or anyone else to alter a sentence legally passed on the grounds that the motive in itself was not a bad one, then we should really undermine the whole foundation on which criminal law ought to rest in any civilised society. Although I am sorry that we have not got these conditions in statutory form, yet I do hope that the present scandals may in substance be brought to an end when these powers are given to the Home Secretary which we ought to take if they appear to be reasonable, and if he comes forward as a responsible Minister and tells the House that he requires these powers in order to carry out his great duties in a proper manner. On those grounds, I shall take the attitude which I have taken in the matter, and cordially support the Bill.
    Mr. W. F. ROCH: I was one of those Members who were in hopes when this Bill was first suggested that it was going to be an alternative to forcible feeding placed in the hands of the Home Secretary, but I am going to vote for this Bill in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be better than his word, and that this will prove to be an alternative for a practice which I do not think is justified. I am going to support this Bill because I quite agree that the Home Secretary is placed in a very serious position. He is placed in a position that the criminal law has virtually broken down in the class of case with which he has got to deal. I believe that were he to throw overboard this practice of forcible feeding, he would be able to justify the law once again. The difficulty he has got in dealing with this class of offence is that there is no social stigma, in the eyes of a large circle of people, upon these women with whom he is dealing. Punishment has no effect, be-
    cause imprisonment is not considered by their friends as involving any stigma of any kind, but while, under those conditions, punishment is no sanction, I think that there is another sanction which will soon have its effect if the Home Secretary gives it a chance. That is public opinion. At the present moment, public opinion is not so strong against these women; indeed, it is surprising to find how many women have justified what these women have done; and I believe that is entirely due to the fact that a large measure of sympathy has been elicited by the practice of forcible feeding; I believe that but for the fact that that excites a large measure of sympathy from people who would otherwise not have it there would be the sanction of public opinion for the law which the Home Secretary administers, and I wish that the Home Secretary had adopted this as an alternative to forcible feeding. Personally, I wish that this Bill and the conditions under which the Home Secretary administers it, will be as stringent as possible in the supervision of these women after they are let out. For myself, I think that they should be shadowed and watched and their houses picketed, and their lives made as objectionable as they possibly can be. I believe that there would be no sympathy whatever for them from the point of view if the right minded general public, such as there has been on account of forcible feeding, that there will be none of what the hon. Baronet calls "slobbering sentiment," and that when people see that these women have broken the law and have not, as I may say, quite played the game, there will then be brought to the justification of the criminal law that strong sanction of public opinion without which all criminal law would be perfectly useless.
    Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 56.

    Division No. 71.]

    AYES.

    [5.44 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Barnston, Harry

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Brady, P. J.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Barrle, H. T.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Butcher, John George

    Arnold, Sydney

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Baird, J. L.

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Campion, W. R.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Boland, John Plus

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jones, Henry Hayden (Merioneth)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Joyce, Michael

    Pointer, Joseph

    Clough, William

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Keating, Matthew

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kelly, Edward

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Radford, George Heynes

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kilbride, Denis

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Cowan, W. H.

    King, J.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Reddy, Michael

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Redmond, John (Waterford)

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cullinan, J.

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robinson, Sidney

    Delany, William

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rowlands, James

    Doris, W.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lyttelton, Hon J. C. (Droitwich)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N).

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Falconer, James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Shortt, Edward

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Kean, John

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Fitzgibbon, John

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Stanier, Beville

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Manfield, Harry

    Stewart, Gershom

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Ginnell, L.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Middlebrook, William

    Tennant, Harold John

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Millar, James Duncan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Molloy, M.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Mooney, John J.

    Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hackett, J.

    Morrell, Philip

    Waring, Walter

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Hancock, J. G.

    Morison, Hector

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Muldoon, John

    Watt, Henry A.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Munro, R.

    Webb, H.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Needham, Christopher

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Neilson, Francis

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nield, Herbert

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hayward, Evan

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Nuttall, Harry

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Winfrey, Richard

    Hinds, John

    O'Dowd, John

    Wing, Thomas

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Malley, William

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Younger, Sir George.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Shee, James John

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    416

    417

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Grant, J. A.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Brace, William

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Snowden, Philip

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hodge, John

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sutton, John E.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Clynes, John R.

    Hudson, Waiter

    Thomas, J. H.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Crooks, William

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Fell, Arthur

    O'Grady, James

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Parker, James (Haliax)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Peto, Basil Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Markham and Mr. W. Thorne.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Read the third time, and passed.

  GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN GUARANTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the chair.]
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move, "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee out of the Consolidated Fund the payment of interest at a rate not exceeding 3½ per cent. per annum on a loan to be raised by the Government of the Soudan, not exceeding an amount sufficient to raise three million pounds."
  I move this Resolution which stands on the Paper in my name with a view to introducing a Bill in order to enable the Government to guarantee the interest on a loan of £3,000,000 to the Government of the Soudan. I thought it right, though it is not in accordance with what has been the usual practice, to place the Resolution upon the Paper in order that hon. Members might know exactly the form in which it was to be proposed. The Government of the Soudan applied some time ago for this loan for the purposes of irrigation and railway extension work in the Soudan, but mainly for developing the cultivation of cotton in that great country. They asked us to guarantee the interest of the loan, and the Government propose that Parliament should assent to that proposal. This country has a direct commercial interest in the transaction, especially Lancashire. We are the greatest exporters of cotton goods in the world, and we are the greatest consumer, therefore, of raw cotton, certainly in Europe, and, I think, come next to
  418
  the United States of America in that respect. Any action tending to the increase of the raw cotton supply of the world directly, and beneficially, affects our greatest staple industry. My hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Gill) was a member of a very remarkable deputation that came to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and myself, some months ago, on behalf of the cotton manufacturers and workmen of this country, to appeal to the Government to sanction this loan, and he pointed out then that during the course of the last six years—
  Mr. GILL: Ten years.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the course of the last ten years our export of cotton goods has increased from £70,500,000 to £122,500,000. Our interest is not merely in increasing the supply of the raw material of cotton, but we have a still greater interest in increasing the supply of the finest qualities of cotton. We have taken the lead in the manufacture of cotton, and we have got a still more distinct lead in the manufacture of the very best qualities of cotton goods, and for this purpose we necessarily have a greater interest in purchasing that quality of raw material which has the longest fibre. There has been, therefore, a movement from markets which supply the coarsest quality of raw material. Fifty years ago a very large portion of the supply of raw material came from the East Indies. Since then there has been a gradual movement going on from decade to decade in the purchase of the finer qualities of raw cotton. We therefore passed from the East Indies to America, and, during recent years, we have increased our purchases of Egyptian raw material, which I believe is of still finer quality than the American. I am informed, in regard to

  419
  Egyptian cotton, that the price is at least 50 per cent. better It is better from the point of view of the manufacturer; it is better from the point of view of the article manufactured, and it is better from the point of view of the workmen especially; it is healthier, cleaner, and easier to work. I was given a very remarkable instance of that in connection with two mills in Lancashire. One mill manufactured cotton goods principally from Egyptian raw material; the other mill manufactured goods from American raw material. They had both the same capital, they employed the same number of hands, and paid the same wages. One consumes 13,000 lbs. a week of Egyptian raw cotton, and the other consumes 90,000 lbs. of American raw cotton. That shows the enormous difference between the two, and how superior the Egyptian raw material is to the American raw material. Latterly, I believe, there has been a slight deterioration in the quality of the Egyptian cotton owing purely to temporary causes, but I believe that steps are being taken to remove the trouble that had injuriously affected the quality of the material. At any rate, the interest of this country is a very direct one in increasing the area of production, and especially in increasing the area of production for the fine quality of cotton. After all, the cotton plant is not native to the United States, but it is indigenous to Africa and the Soudan, where there was formerly a very considerable trade in cotton. There is no doubt at all that the soil of the Soudan is specially fitted for the purpose of growing cotton. A few years ago, I think, the British Cotton Growing Association sent a deputation to the Soudan to investigate the subject, and Mr. J. Arthur Hutton, the chairman of that association, to whom the cotton industry of this country owes a deep debt of gratitude, gave a very remarkable and very graphic account of the cotton growing there to the Minister who received the deputation. He referred especially to the Gezira Plain, a tract of country which I believe is about the same area as the Egyptian Delta—that is, about 5,000,000 acres. He described the Gezira Plain as now barren, sterile, hardly anything growing on it, flat, with a general slope from east to west, especially suited for irrigation purposes, because the difficulty in irrigation is not merely getting
  420
  the water on but also getting the water off afterwards, which operation costs almost as much as to get it on. Part of the trouble with some land is that it gets water-logged. Mr. Hutton pointed out that the Gezira Plain seemed to be naturally adapted to irrigation purposes, as there was a slope on it which would enable them to get the water off the land at very small expense. Then he pointed out that about two or three thousand acres of that land had already been irrigated, and there in that very barren, unproductive desert, pure desert, you suddenly came on this oasis, which was entirely due to the work done on that two or three thousand acres. On those acres he found the most wonderful cotton crop his eyes had ever looked at. He said it produced 550 lbs. average weight per acre, and that the Egyptian crop is generally 450 lbs. average per acre, while the United States crop is 200 lbs. average weight per acre. Thus you have those two thousand acres carved out of an absolute desert merely by this process of irrigation converted into something which you could hardly equal in any part of the world. I think it will be rather interesting to the House to hear what. Mr. Hutton said about this. He gives, first of all, the number of acres, and, talking about that wonderful oasis, says:—
  "Practically every acre of it is capable of producing high-class cotton, such as I have Just described, and of a quality which Lancashire requires in larger and larger quantities every day. It is also a country which can be irrigated at a comparatively small expense."
  He points out that he tested the quality of the cotton, and that he was informed by one of the largest spinners of Egyptian cotton in Lancashire that the Soudan cotton sold to him by the British Cotton-Growers' Association was the most satisfactory spinning cotton he had ever seen. It was fine, exceptionally strong, made very little waste in spinning, and was vastly superior to the general type of cotton grown in the Egyptian Delta. The cotton of the Egyptian Delta is infinitely superior to the American cotton, while the report shows that the cotton grown in the Gezira Delta is superior to the Egyptian, and of very fine quality. I remember seeing Wingate Pasha, who was very confident as to the prospect of the Soudan in this respect. He went into the matter very carefully, and he was quite convinced that the Soudan would be one of the finest cotton-growing areas in the whole world. The report and the supply of cotton to

  421
  the Lancashire firm fully confirm everything which he said in this respect. The idea is to spend about a million pounds upon the irrigation of the Gezira district. That would mean that five million acres of this wonderful soil would practically for the first time, or at any rate for a good many years, be gradually brought into cultivation for the purpose of growing cotton Then it is proposed in another area, perhaps not quite so fertile—that is, Tokar—should be brought into cultivation by the same means, and that in another area—Kassala—that perhaps a sum of £200.000 would be spent in bringing about a hundred thousand acres into cultivation. That is also a very fertile district, and the idea is that a very considerable quantity of first-class cotton can be produced in that area as well.
  We consulted Lord Kitchener, who has taken a very great interest in this matter, and I had the pleasure of seeing him about this subject when he came to this country some months ago. He is very sanguine as to the prospects of cotton-growing in the Soudan. With regard to population, there are two difficulties, one is that the population was desolated and the country depopulated not merely by the slaughter by the Dervishes, but owing to the fact that they drove the people away in terror. The other difficulty is the nomadic habits of the population. They are not accustomed to settle down to labour. With regard to the figures as to population, and these are figures given by Lord Kitchener, before the Dervish occupation the population is estimated to have been 9,000,000 in the Soudan, and after long years of the Dervishes the population was reduced to 2,000,000. He estimates that the population last year was 3,000,000, and it is very rapidly rising. That increase is due not merely to the natural growth of the population, but through immigration. The people are flocking to the Soudan from surrounding countries now that they are enjoying settled government there and it is prosperous and profitable to work there. Lord Kitchener's estimate is, that through the natural growth of the population and still more through the immigration from the surrounding areas, the population in the Soudan in another five or six years will be 6,000,000. Another thing mentioned by Lord Kitchener was that the nomadic population are settling down and getting fitted for labour, and whenever there is a fair prospect that their labour will be remunerated there is no
  422
  difficulty at all in inducing them to undertake steady work. Undoubtedly, if this loan is granted and the money spent on this purpose, there will soon be an industrial population with very good workmen to turn their hands to an industry of this kind.
  The Committee would like to know, when we are guaranteeing a loan of this kind, what the condition of the Soudan is financially. Some years ago, of course, it was very bad. There was practically no revenue because there was no trade. The country had been devastated by the Dervishes, and, with the exception of the nomadic tribes there who possessed cattle, there was no steady agricultural work done in the country at all. The country was consequently poor and most of the population followed the army of the Mahdi. Trade has grown to such an extent during the last few years that in 1906 the exports amounted to £265,000. They included cereals. In the old days they used to import cereals, but the Soudan is now exporting them. In 1911 the exports amounted to £1,400,000, which shows the rapidity with which the Soudan is developing and increasing in wealth. The revenue stands thus: In 1898, which was, I think, the year of the battle of Omdur-man, the revenue was at its very lowest £35,000. In 1899 it rose to £127,000; in 1905 to £665,000; and in 1912, £1,424,000. I do not know that there is any country shows such a very rapid growth in real substantial development as does the Soudan. I think that up to the present year the Egyptian Government gave a very substantial subsidy to the Soudan Government in order to enable them to carry on the work of administration there. That was not by any means a loss to the Egyptian Government, which, as a matter of fact, substantially gained by the occupation of the Soudan, because prior to that occupation the Egyptian Government had to maintain a very considerable army there That was a very expensive undertaking, as they had to keep a very considerable army in order to protect the frontiers. The position now is that only a small army occupies the Soudan; Egypt feels perfectly secure from invasion, and gains financially a great deal in consequence of that. What appears to be a subsidy at the expense of Egypt has really been a relief to her finances. This year, for the first time, the accounts are square, and there is no subsidy except for the small

  423
  contingent of Egyptian troops in occupation of the Soudan. The revenue is a very healthy one. It will interest some of my hon. Friends to know that the Land Taxes are very productive and that they are going up year by year. That is a proof of the agricultural prosperity of the country.
  There they also have railway nationalisation, which is a source of revenue to the country. Receipts from the railway department alone have increased since 1909 from £336,000 to £505,000. That in itself indicates the growing prosperity. That is the position financially. I think that Lord Kitchener is perfectly justified, on the figures which I have quoted and others which I could have placed before the Committee, in coming to the conclusion that the Soudan can bear a burden of this kind, and not only that, but that the expenditure of a capital sum of this kind will enable them to bear this and other burdens much more easily than they could if money was not spent on development. There is no country in the world that pays better for development, because labour is of the best and the soil is so fertile. What it does suffer from is want of irrigation. Last year crops went down rather in consequence of drought. The difficulty is to get an abundant supply of water to irrigate the soil and bring out its fertile qualities. One difficulty that has always to be taken into account is that irrigation, unless the works are conducted in conjunction with those in charge of the Egyptian Government, whilst it profited the Soudan, might inflict very serious damage upon Egypt, because both countries are dependent upon the same river. What has been done in Egypt in the way of irrigation shows what a change is made in these countries by anything which provides an abundant supply of water to the soil. An hon. Friend of mine who knows a good deal about this subject has put into my hands figures showing what has happened in connection with the Assouan Dam. In 1899 the land there was worth 191,000,000, and the rent 16,250,000. In 1912 the same land was worth 488,000,000, and the rent was 37,750,000. I suppose those figures represent Egyptian pounds.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Piastres?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not certain what the coin is; but whatever it is, the proportion is the same. It shows an enormous increase in the value of land
  424
  caused by these irrigation works. I am told by those who know, that the land of the Soudan will show the same increased value, if not more even than the land in the Egyptian Delta, if we spend a reasonable sum on irrigation. It may be asked why a guarantee is necessary if the country is so rich. I think it is pretty obvious. One reason is that, although there has been an enormous increase in the revenue, the Soudan up to the present has not paid its way. It has now squared its accounts, and in a very short time it will pay its way. The danger is that if the Soudan went on its own account to the market it would have to pay a very high rate of interest, or, at any rate, a higher rate than it would do with an official guarantee. A high rate of interest might make all the difference between this undertaking being a burden and its being a profitable transaction for some years to come. Therefore, we are justified, I think, even from that point of view, in giving a guarantee. The second reason is that there is a direct commercial interest in developing the Soudan for cotton growing. As long as we are dependent almost entirely on the American crop, one knows from past experience what disasters may ensue to the trade of this country, and especially of Lancashire. One very serious disaster has happened already—it is true, many years ago—but from time to time, owing to the failure of the crop and fluctuations of that kind, the cotton industry in Lancashire is very seriously impaired. Not only that, but it is so dependent upon financial operations in America which deal with cotton that, even when there is an abundant crop, there is sometimes a scanty supply here, because of the attempts to corner the supply. It is of the highest importance that we should get a cotton supply over which we have some sort of control ourselves, and that will undoubtedly be effected if we develop a country which is under our dominion and control.
  Another alternative is that we should put the liability upon Egypt. I do not think you can do that, for two or three reasons. One is that you are developing sources of supply which are rivals to those of the Egyptian fellaheen and asking them to increase the facilities of their own trade rivals at their own expense. I think that is rather too much to ask. The second reason is very largely political; we cannot do it without the consent of Turkey. I do not know what conditions Turkey

  425
  might impose; at any rate, I had better leave it to the imagination, knowledge and intelligence of hon. Members, to think out for themselves the sort of reasons which impel us to prefer not to seek the consent of anybody else. I think it is important that we should take a direct hand in aiding the Soudan to develop its natural resources. Another suggestion is that the work should be left to private enterprise. There are special reasons why that cannot be done. One paramount reason is that you cannot leave a private company to deal with the Nile supply of water, because it is life to Egypt as well as to the Soudan. You might so manipulate the resources of water supply of the Nile for the Soudan as to inflict irreparable injury upon the whole of Egypt. One difficulty is to store the water at the beginning of the year when it is not required in Egypt. They had to make a special experiment in growing cotton at a period of the year when they could get the water without depriving Egypt, and it was a complete success. That shows the importance of keeping the control of the water supply of these two countries in the hands of the Governments of Egypt and the Soudan. There was some idea of distributing the water supply as between the two branches of the Nile, giving the Blue Nile to the Soudan and the White Nile to Egypt. How they have arranged the matter I am not quite sure. But the water supply of Egypt must be the paramount consideration, and I am glad to say that the Governments of Egypt and the Soudan have been able to arrive at an arrangement which will be satisfactory to both.
  A portion of this money is to be devoted to railway extension in the Soudan. The railways in the Soudan at present are Government property. The system is a Government system. You cannot leave to private enterprise the extension of railways which are entirely Government railways. These railways are wanted, not merely for trade, but for strategic purposes. It is therefore important that they should be not in private hands, but entirely financed by the Government. The third reason is supplied by the very remarkable figures given by my hon. Friend as to the enormous increase in the value of land effected by irrigation. It is very important that the Government should keep control of the land and of the profit arising therefrom, because they need every penny for the development of this very remarkable country. These are the reasons which
  426
  impel the Government to ask the sanction of the House to the guarantee of the interest on this loan. Our proposals are substantially these: The money is not to be raised all at once; it will be raised as required; it is to be paid by instalments. We guarantee only the interest, not the capital. There is to be a sinking fund to enable the Soudan to repay the loan in thirty years. The interest is not to exceed 3½ per cent. The purposes I have already indicated to the Committee are, for irrigation, £1,000,000 for the Gezira Delta, £100,000 for Tokar, and £200,000 for Kassala; £1,600,000 for railway extension; and £100,000 for contingencies; making £3,000,000 in all. I do not think there has ever been a financial proposition which I could commend with greater confidence to the judgment of this Committee.
  Mr. DENNISS: I must congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the great knowledge that he has shown of the condition of the cotton trade of this country, and the possibilities of the Soudan as a cotton-growing district. He has told us that whilst the price of Egyptian cotton is 50 per cent. more than that of other cotton, yet there has only been a slight deterioration in the cotton, due entirely to temporary causes. I think the House should know that that is scarcely so. The Egyptian cotton, upon which a very large part of the most valuable cotton trade of this country depends, has very much deteriorated in quality of late years, and the crop per acre has also very much decreased. It has deteriorated from various causes. It has deteriorated in quantity, first, because a great deal of the delta of the country where the cotton is grown has become water-logged. It has deteriorated in quality because the seed which is used in the country has become mixed, accidentally and fraudulently. The result is that a good deal of the seed sown produces an inferior class of cotton. The varieties of cotton which are being grown at the present time also seem to lose their virtue in the course of years, and the life of the best varieties is only about ten years. There is great need in Egypt and in the Soudan that new varieties of seed should be cultivated, and that great care should be taken that the seed is of the best kind and pure.
  One of the great causes of the deterioration of Egyptian cotton is that the small merchant who sells the seed to the small cotton grower is a moneylender. The small cotton growers are unable to pay cash, and

  427
  the result is that the sellers give them an inferior and mixed seed, which is often fraudulently adulterated. I wish that I could agree that that was a slight deterioration due to temporary causes. I am afraid the cause lies deeper than that. I understand the Egyptian Government are tackling the question; but it will take time. Acting upon suggestions made by the Master Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers' Associations, seed has been sold on credit to the small growers, and in that way it is hoped to help to better the crop. The Government have also, I think, to a certain extent, encouraged scientific research with regard to the growing of new varieties. But what has been stated is not the only evil. Of late years—I have the figures somewhere—the amount grown per acre has fallen very much. I think it has gone down in quantity per acre, since 1897, from 5.60 per cent. to about 4.24 per cent., a difference of about 25 per cent. This, of course, is a very serious matter. If the cotton growers of Egypt could produce more cotton per acre than now they could afford to charge a lower price for it, and that 50 per cent. above all other cotton, mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be considerably reduced. Great importance therefore attaches to the point that, in the growing of cotton, as much per acre as possible should be produced. The price would be lowered, yet the extra amount grown would give a good return to the cotton grower.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that Egypt has gained by the occupation of the Soudan. It may have indirectly, and in the way pointed out by him, but as a matter of fact all improvements carried out in the Soudan have been carried out by money which has come out of the fellaheen of Egypt. They have paid for everything there. This country has done nothing. Therefore it is not fair to call upon Egypt now to provide the money needed for cotton growing; it should be provided from other sources. I should like to make it clear to the House—the Chancellor has made it clear I think—but it is extremely important that the House should understand what the cotton trade of England is asking for is not capital to be provided by the Government for them to spend, but only that the interest on the capital should be guaranteed—nothing more. The British Government run no risk of losing any capital. All they
  428
  have to do is to guarantee the interest. Every authority who is qualified to speak upon this question thinks that this is a most excellent business proposition, and one which will not cost this country a single penny. A good many of us think that if a very much larger sum could be spent or invested by the Government in the country itself it would become in time as valuable as the Suez Canal shares have proved to be. This is a question which I hope will not be made a party question. It is a national question. It is more than that. It is a national question because both employers and operatives want it. I have no doubt that presently the hon. Member for Bolton will tell us what the operatives have done; of the amount of money they have spent out of their own pockets towards increasing the cotton growing of the Empire. The question ought not to be treated as a party question. I trust that no party shibboleths of any kind will be introduced into the Debate. It is a world question. The cotton industry of the world is one which makes nations dependent upon one another more than any other industry that exists. The Foreign Secretary said a little while ago that when nations once came to recognise their real dependence upon one another universal peace would be secured. By no industry more than by the cotton industry could that be promoted, for the cotton industry is one of the most ancient of industries, and is spread over the four quarters of the globe. The striking fact to which I wish to call the attention of the House is, as I have already mentioned, the great falling off in quantity per acre and quality of Egyptian cotton.
  The Lancashire cotton trade has changed very much of late years. Foreign competition, India, Japan, China itself, have filched from it the greater part of what is called technically its coarse trade. Every year the weaving and spinning of the finer cotton cloths has been increasing, until at the present time—I speak from memory—there are over 13,000,000 spindles spinning fine cotton to 35,000,000 spinning coarse American cotton. The 13,000,000 spindles are spinning Egyptian cotton, and the 35,000,000 spindles are spinning principally American cotton. The proportion between the two is constantly increasing in the direction of more spindles for spinning Egyptian cotton. The spinning of beautiful fine cloths and fabrics made every year and numbered for

  429
  export is increasing. Lancashire is maintaining her preponderance in the markets of the world on account of the very fine quality of the cloth and yarns that she turns out. The falling off, therefore, of the crop in Egypt, in the direction I have indicated, and the possibility of still greater falling off in time, is very serious for that branch of the trade. In regard to the other branch of the trade, the coarser cloths, our dependence upon America is absolute. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not mention what I believe is a fact that according to the report of the Secretary of the International Federation of Master Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers' Associations who was sent out to the Soudan, the southern part of the Soudan, is admirably adapted for the growing of American cotton, and the northern part of the Soudan for the growing of Egyptian cotton. In the north there is no rainfall practically. As you go further south in the northern portion of the southern part there is a rainfall of about 20 inches. As you go further south, the rainfall increases 40 inches, and you can grow cotton by the rainfall without any irrigation at all. There is an immense area—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman's observations are not being directed to the proposals now before the Committee. Where there is a rainfall we do not need irrigation. I think the Committee will desire to keep strictly to the purposes for which this guarantee on loan is desired.
  Mr. DENNISS: I am very sorry, but there are railways as well as cotton growing for which the money is required; but I will leave the subject. In any case, the cotton supply of the world is of the utmost importance to this country, and the more cotton that can be grown in Egypt, the less our dependence upon the United States of America. The cotton industry, as the Chancellor has stated, is our greatest staple industry. Any movement for its development is of vital importance to the national welfare. Anything which injures or is likely to injure it would be a great affliction to this country. So far as I have been able to calculate, the yearly wages paid to the operatives in this trade amount to something like £30,000,000. About £600,000 are weekly spent in wages, and the spending power of that, of course, helps to keep up a very large number of tradespeople, so that whole communities are practically dependent upon the cotton
  430
  trade. In my Constituency about 212,000 people absolutely depend upon the cotton trade. We know what a terrible thing it was when the war occurred between North and South America, and cotton practically ceased to be imported. The suffering in Lancashire was very terrible. Half of the operatives, some 250,000, went upon the Poor Law, and as many more had relief, though they were not actually made paupers. A few years ago, when there was a partial failure of the United States cotton crop, incalculable suffering was caused to many thousands of people and millions of money were lost. Sir Charles Macara, one of the greatest authorities, if not the greatest, upon the cotton question, tried to show the importance of increasing the world's supply by a very striking illustration. He says that a rise of 2½d. per pound in the price means a rise of £100,000,000 sterling upon the world's cotton crop. In regard to England, which takes about one-fifth of the world's supply, it would mean an extra expenditure on raw material of £20,000,000, and I think it is germane to say that in January, 1913, the price of cotton was 2d. more per pound than in 1912, so it cost this country something like £16,000,000 more for our raw material. Eighty per cent. of that being exported, one-fifth of £16,000,000 falls upon the people of this country for the cotton materials they wear. These high prices for cotton mean unemployment and more short time. Short time in 1910, due to the high prices of cotton, meant a loss of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 in the wages of the artisan class, and anything like a prolonged period of short time would, of course, cost the country an immense sum of money.
  The sources upon which we rely for our supplies of cotton outside America are extremely limited. Perhaps it is not generally known that out of the 3,000,000 bales of cotton produced in India, only the ridiculously small quantity of 40,000 bales comes to this country at all. We practically do not take any Indian cotton. From our British Possessions we only get a very small quantity now—about 30,000 bales—although the total production of our Possessions is 60,000 bales, so that we are left to depend for the great mass of our cotton upon the United States and Egypt. The United States send us 3,290,000 bales. In 1912 Egypt sent us 330,000 bales and the rest of the world sent us 105,000 bales, of which 30,000 comes

  431
  from British Possessions. The world's consumption is increasing very rapidly. I find that there are 5,500,000 more spindles last year than in 1912.
  The CHAIRMAN: I really do not think this is the occasion for a general review of the conditions of the cotton trade. The question is whether the Committee will authorise the introduction of a Bill to provide and guarantee this proposed loan for a particular purpose. Many hon. Members want to address themselves to that point, and I think the hon. Member should keep to that, and not travel into the wider review of the cotton trade.
  Mr. DENNISS: I will leave that branch of the question altogether. I only wish to point out in one sentence that, while the world's spindles are increasing enormously, the raw cotton supply is not increasing in any such proportion, and therefore we may find ourselves in great difficulty, and that it is necessary for us to increase our supply in the Soudan. I was going to give some striking figures, but I will not do so now. I should like to say a word about the Soudan. The area includes Gezira, Kassala, and Tokar. Gezira lies between the Blue and White Niles. It can produce cotton superior to the very finest Egyptian cotton. The transport is already provided, there is an excellent system of railways provided by the Government, and there is an excellent harbour, Port Sudan, so that if this money is granted and well spent we shall be able to provide our cotton industry with the very finest quality of raw material for a class of work which is increasing most rapidly and upon which its permanent success must ultimately depend. I think we should be able by the new railway to supply this country with American cotton as well. The population, I am told, although small, is one of the finest populations in the world. Cotton growing in the Soudan is not a new industry; it was grown there for centuries. The Soudan exported 20,000 bales last year, so that it is not an experiment at all, but a well-assured industry, merely requiring water for the irrigation of the growth and railways for transport. If this money is guaranteed and properly spent, and other assistance is given by the Government, you have there an area which in the course of some years can supply enough cotton, both Egyptian and American, for the whole of Lancashire. I also think we
  432
  should be very thankful to the Government for encouraging the Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers in the efforts they have made to increase the cotton supply to the world. Of course, it will not all come to England, but the more there is in the world the cheaper the price is, the less danger there is of a cotton famine, and in a way to the great staple trade of England and the people who depend upon it.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday invited the House of Commons to be specially vigilant in regard to the Budget proposals, and in regard to finance, and then when it came to eight o'clock he moved to report Progress, so that he truncated the discussion upon his own proposals upon the very first night by something like three hours. To-night the right hon. Geneltman has made a proposal, which I did not rise as he imagines, for the purpose of opposing or even criticising. On the contrary, I believe it is perhaps, as I said upon a former occasion, really a measure of protection and a measure of bounty, and I think it was extremely generous of the hon. Member for Oldham to have asked the Opposition not to make this a party question. For my part I never regarded the Chancellor as a Free Trader, and I regard his statements on this subject as boldly proclaiming that he is going to enable Lancashire to compete with America by enlarging the markets of this country and enabling cotton to be produced in British Possessions better than in any other country, and I regard that as what I may call protection in excelsis, and therefore I warmly commend the scheme which he has initiated. I said on another occasion, and I repeat it now, that I do not believe there is a single Member of the Government a Free Trader. Perhaps we will have another opportunity of developing that when we come to the Fish Branding Bill, introduced by the Minister of Agriculture, which is intended for the purpose of depriving Ireland and Scotland of the small advantage they get in the markets. It is an extraordinry fact that the Treasury now adopt its present attitude. For the first time the Chancellor of the Exchequer poses as a sort of fairy godmother of the Empire. Hitherto the Chancellor of the Exchequer was supposed to stand in front of the Treasury with a flaming sword, warning off any person who tried to secure money, but now, and not for the first time by any means, we find he is a most approachable

  433
  Chancellor, and if any of his colleagues in the Cabinet with whom he is in sympathy approach him, he is quite willing to grant their demand. Last year we found that was the case in regard to the Colonial Secretary in reference to Uganda, and now it is the Foreign Secretary that has managed to attract his sympathy, and at once the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives a million, or a half a million, for the purpose he champions.
  7.0 P.M.
  I raise this question of procedure, and I congratulate the Chancellor upon having adopted this procedure, but I want to know what has he to say about his procedure of last year. Have we now entered upon the normal and constitutional course upon this point? Last year Uganda got half a million upon the Estimates without a Bill. The year before Uganda—the same country—got half a million by Statute, and that was put into the Budget Act. I think it is of the highest importance when we are invited by the right hon. Gentleman to be strict, if not censorious, in our treatment of him, on money questions, that we should now ask if we are back upon the normal course of Treasury procedure. If we sanction this, will he next year come down for a million for the Soudan, and propose it by way of the Estimates, and tell us that the Appropriation Bill is the solvent for further constitutional difficulties? The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago he was taking an unusual course. I deny that. I say he is taking a constitutional course. We had different courses taken for three years running, and I want to ask which is the constitutional course. We are now in 1913, and he proposes, as I understand, a special Bill to make a loan for the Soudan. I approve of that course. Last year he wanted to give half a million to Uganda, and he did it by the Appropriation Act. The year before he had another half a million to give to Uganda, and he did it by the Budget. I therefore welcome this Bill. I thought it was strange that the right hon. Gentleman did not say one word in outlining these proposals on the question of procedure. I think he said he was taking an unusual course.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said that I was taking an unusual course in putting this Resolution on the Order Paper. No previous Chancellors of the Exchequer have done this. Recently I have adopted the course of putting the exact words of the Resolution on the Paper.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He is claiming that instead of letting us hear by the mouth of Mr. Whitley the Resolution that is to be proceeded with in Committee, he has put it on the Paper. That is not a very great concession. Why did he do so? Because this matter was conceived to be of sufficient importance to put into the King's Speech. It is very unusual to put a notice of a loan in the King's Speech, and the reason this has been given the bulge and prominence on the Notice Paper is that the Government, in introducing it into His Majesty's Speech, conceived it to be of sufficient importance to put it before the country as something they were going to do in the interests of Lancashire cotton-growing and the Empire. I am not quarrelling with that. What I am asking is whether the Government has now entered upon a normal course of procedure. I would like to know what is the legal position of the Soudan. Is the Soudan to be considered in the position of a country annexed and united to the Crown as part of His Majesty's Dominions? That is a matter which may explain why a Statute is necessary in a case of this kind. I should conceive it a very different matter to be voting money to a foreign country as a loan to voting money to those whom we consider our fellow subjects. Accordingly, when the right hon. Gentleman assumes the position which hitherto I had supposed was the rôle of the Foreign Secretary, I am entitled to know to whom we are lending this money. How is the Soudan governed? Is it governed as a purely British Possession or as a part of Egypt over which we exercise suzerainty? These are matters on which I think we are entitled to have some explanation. I rose not for the purpose of offering any objection in any way to this measure, because I think the proposals of the Government are right and sound. I do claim, however, that in considering this matter we ought to have fully explained to us what the position is. I think the right hon. Gentleman stated the length of the loan.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Thirty years.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think that is quite a reasonable period, and therefore it is not upon any such ground that I take my point. I think we are entitled to a statement from the Government that they will abandon the vicious practice of putting these loans or grants into the Appropria-

  435
  tion Bill, and I hope we shall be told that we have now entered upon a normal and proper constitutional procedure.
  Mr. GILL: I will not attempt to enter into the question of procedure in a matter of this description. Interested as I am mostly in the cotton trade of Lancashire, and more especially with the operative section, I want to support the Resolution before the House at the present time. I look upon it that this cannot be confined to a question of providing cotton for Lancashire, because it is also a question of the development of the Soudan, although I know that the cotton provided will come mostly to Lancashire. I have been connected for some years with the British Cotton Growing Association as the representative of the Operatives Association, and it was necessary that something should be done to increase the supply of the raw material on account of the failure of the crops in America and elsewhere from time to time. I know that something has been done with regard to our own Colonies. I look upon it as the duty of any Government which may be in power in this country that, if they begin to colonise, they ought to see to it that those countries are developed, whether they are Colonies or Protectorates. As far as that is concerned something has been done in that respect. The West Indies are growing a very superior cotton in very large quantities, and also in East and West Africa a quality is being grown equal to the American cotton. On this particular question the employers of Lancashire and the employed are at one, and there is no dispute in regard to the growing of cotton. Although there are times when we enter into sharp conflict on different matters, happily there is no such question as that now.
  I think this loan ought to be guaranteed, because it will develop the Soudan and will improve the people in that country, and because when the cotton is grown there is certain to be a market for it. There are in connection with the Lancashire cotton trade nearly 630,000 people directly engaged in it, but that is not the whole of the influence that it has, because, directly and indirectly, there are no less than 10,000,000 affected by the cotton trade itself. The operatives' associations and individuals have shown their willingness and earnestness in dealing with this question of cotton growing by subscribing no less a sum than £54,000 to assist cotton growing in the Empire. The expansion
  436
  of the cotton trade has been very rapid, and in the Manchester districts alone there has been an increase in the number of spindles during the last five years of no less than 20 per cent. When I say that the exports of cotton goods are equal to about one-fourth of the total exports of the United Kingdom, and have risen since 1902 from £72,500,000 to £122,250,000 in 1912, I think that may be looked upon as having been such a great expansion that it is necessary something should be done for the purpose of providing a great quantity of cotton. The trade has extended largely in other countries as well as our own, and we have to get the raw material in competition with them. We have no desire whatever to interfere with that competition, but we want to have a greater number of fields of supply. With regard to the world's number of spindles we have in England 55,000,000 out of a total of 134,000,000 for the whole world, and it will be seen at once we ought to look after increasing our cotton supply as much as possible.
  In the past we have been almost entirely dependent upon America, Egypt and India, but chiefly upon America. It used to be the case, not many years ago, that the American cotton crop amounted to only 9,000,000 or 10,000,000 bales and 5,000,000 cantars of Egyptian cotton. As the hon. Member for Oldham says, perhaps the yield per acre of the cotton in Egypt has been rather less, but that does not mean that the growth of Egyptian cotton has been less. Where we used to get 5,000,000 cantars we now get from 7,000,000 to 7,500,000 cantars per year, and this is all absorbed, and the American crop has gone up from 14,000,000 to 16,000,000 bales. With the rapid extension of the industry we need to have a much greater quantity and more fields than we have had. It is true, as the hon. Member for Oldham says, that with the extension of trade we are gradually getting finer qualities of yarn, and we are producing better qualities of goods. Ours is the finer and more expensive quality, and the qualities that absorb a great deal more labour than the coarser qualities. The class of cotton we require most is one that can be grown in the Soudan. That is the class we use in Manchester, Bolton, and those districts that spin the finer qualities. Therefore, it can hardly be looked upon in the nature of an experiment to begin growing cotton in the Soudan, because it has been grown for a large number of years, and practic-

  437
  ally 20,000 bales were exported last year. It has been proved conclusively by the experts who have visited the Soudan that everything is suitable for the purposes of growing cotton in considerable quantities.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the Gezira Plain in which there are 5,000,000 acres of good land entirely suitable to the growth of this fine fibre. Only 2,000 acres are now being used, and that is producing a very largo quantity indeed, varying from 450 lbs. to 480 lbs. per acre, which is double the quantity that is grown per acre in America. The climate and the soil is entirely suitable to the growing of this fine fibre, and experts tell us that we may look to very large quantities of cotton being grown in this particular area. We depend on Egypt and the West Indies for the finest cotton that is grown. Certainly the West Indies grow a finer quality than Egypt, but that is not wanted in such large quantities as the Egyptian, cotton, and the quality grown in the Soudan is equal to the best Egyptian that is grown. It has been proved by those who have examined the cotton and tested its quality that the production on the spindles has been larger. The failure of the crop in any part of the world means a very serious thing for Lancashire, because it means short time, privation, and operatives will have to go something short. We have had some experience a few years ago of the failure of the crop in America, and advantage was taken of it to corner the market, with the result that there was serious distress in Lancashire. Wherever we have an opportunity of urging the British Government to increase the supply of cotton, then we ought to do it. There may be failure in one particular country in any particular year, while at the same period perhaps the other countries may be successful. The result would be that we should be better able to keep our spindles going than we should otherwise be. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) said this was Protection. The Lancashire cotton trade wants no Protection. I want to know what duty is going to be put on this cotton or any other cotton coming into Lancashire. It will be sold and imported exactly in the same way as any other cotton, and I expect it will be open to be purchased by the different countries on the Continent of Europe just the same as American cotton. We do not want any Protection in any way whatever, the only thing we want is a good supply of raw
  438
  material. That is the only thing for which we ask. We ask that the country that can grow cotton and with which the British Government has any influence should be developed for the purpose of assisting the people there as well as for the purpose of finding a market for the goods they produce. Under these circumstances, I think we shall be doing right in supporting the guarantee of this loan and repudiating anything in the nature of Protection.
  Mr. BAIRD: Nobody who knows the Soudan can possibly vote against this measure, but I think we are entitled to rather a more detailed explanation than that which was furnished by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The greater part of his speech obviously came out of the recent report of Lord Kitchener on the Soudan. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head, but he could not go to a better source.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree.
  Mr. BAIRD: Indeed, I think it is the best source to which he could go, and I hope it did come out of that report. If it came from anywhere else it might be suspect. I cannot understand exactly where this money is going to be spent. I am bound to confess that it is only curiosity which prompts one to ask, because one may be perfectly certain if Lord Kitchener and Sir Reginald Wingate have settled where the money is wanted, it will be well spent; but, as a matter of principle, since we are letting ourselves in for £105,000 of the taxpayers' money every year, I think we might have had a rather more detailed account of what is precisely going to be done. In Lord Kitchener's last report there is a communication to this effect:—
  "In regard to the Gezira project, a suitable site for the Sennar Dam has been located. The cost of the works contemplated as necessary for the irrigation of the area of 500,000 feddans in the Gezira, which could be developed in the next ten to fifteen years, is estimated at £3,000,000."
  I wondered whether that was the scheme, but when there is a question of the development of Kassala and Tokar that cannot be so. I suppose this is a Grant-in-Aid to the Soudan for the development of its resources. We could not possibly spend the money better. It is very fortunate for the Soudanese that their interests are not only advocated by so powerful a man as Lord Kitchener, but that they happen to coincide with the interests of the electors of this country. The more money we spend like this the

  439
  better it will be for the Empire, and the less likely are we who are keen Imperialists to be called Jingoes. With regard to this project, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that it was desirable we should maintain control over the source of the raw material. What control are we going to have? It would be very interesting to know whether it is a fact, as stated by the hon. Member who last spoke (Mr. Gill), that the whole world is coming in to buy this cotton or whether we are, in fact, going to use this money to develop the Soudan for the benefit of our own people. I hope that is so. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) asked what is the position of the Soudan. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Acland) no doubt will explain, but the position of the Soudan is like everything else along the banks of the Nile; it is a paradox. It is the one country in the world where you have the British and Egyptian flags flying side by side, and British officers, wearing the Egyptian uniform, giving orders in Turkish. It works extremely well, and you have a prosperous and contented population. I am glad to think that we are going to assist them by this loan.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the advantages of having work of this kind done by the Government rather than by private individuals. I think the arguments advanced are perfectly sound and entirely justify the course of action he proposes. He will recollect the analogous case of the Assouan dam. That work has repaid itself one-hundred fold, but there is no doubt that if it had been possible to carry that work out in the same sort of way as this is going to be done, the benefit to Egypt would have been very much larger. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about the advantage which is going to accrue from the Government keeping the land in its own hands, but I rather think that the Government have first got to get the land. I do not believe that the land which is going to be benefited by this irrigation scheme, or by the railway, or by the development which will take place in consequence of the various works, by any means belongs to the Government. A certain amount of it does, but the last report of Lord Kitchener is full of instances of the extension of the work of registration. I suppose it is a register of title deeds of the present occupiers of the land, and I
  440
  am afraid the right hon. Gentleman will find that he is helping the landlords of the Soudan to a very large extent. Incidentally, he is also helping the cotton spinners in Lancashire and the fellaheen in Egypt, and no doubt it will be all right, but the Soudanese landlord is in a better position in the eyes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer than the Scotch landlord. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is under the impression that this is Government land—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, not all of it.
  Mr. BAIRD: I think the great majority of it is not. There is this to be said: The value of the land undoubtedly, as in the case of Egypt, will be enormously increased, and consequently the yield of taxes will be very much larger. He is perfectly entitled, therefore, to anticipate a very much larger increase in the value of the works to the Government without introducing the pernicious system of land nationalisation. This scheme has been thoroughly justified by the remarks that have been made by hon. Members in all parts of the House with regard to the importance of developing the cotton-growing capacities of the Soudan. It is not only cotton, but a thousand and one things that have to be developed, and in particular this growing and important market, not only for cotton, but for all our produce, is going to receive very great assistance from this loan. I think the present Government, who are the political successors of the Government which was responsible for the evacuation of the Soudan, and the years of misery under Dervish rule which resulted therefrom must be doubly pleased at this opportunity of doing one more good turn to the people of that now fortunate country.
  Mr. MORRELL: I would like to join in the congratulations which have been addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer from all parts of the House on a project which I am sure will be welcomed all through the country and nowhere more than in Lancashire as an admirable project. I could not help being amused at the fact that so admirable does the project seem to the advocates of the dying cause of Protection that they are anxious to annex it in favour of their policy. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) went so far as to claim all

  441
  the Members on the Treasury Bench as converts to the Protectionist policy.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: They were always Protectionists.
  Mr. MORRELL: That is a more interesting announcement still. But I was glad to notice that, at any rate, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) did not trouble to try and drag this Tariff Reform red herring across this Debate. He, in fact, went so far as to quote Cobden in support of this proposal. There are some Gentlemen I know who are always ready to find out Protection unless the Government pursue a policy of absolute laissez faire in everything. What is the real analogy for this action with regard to the Soudan? We are acting, of course, upon the analogy of the Development Fund in this country. In 1909 we put aside a fund for the development of agriculture and fisheries in this country, and in the course of the two years up to 31st March, 1912, I find that the Development Commissioners had actually sanctioned in loans and Grants, mainly Grants, a sum of something like half a million of money—£424,000. All that money ultimately comes out of the taxpayers of this country, and not one penny is of any use to the cotton trade in Lancashire. What they want is the development of cotton growing in the Soudan, and this it seems to me is a very fair compensation to them, a very fair quid pro quo for what has gone to the agricultural interests of this country. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Baird) said that we are going to spend £105,000 a year on interest, but he must be aware that this is only a guarantee and, as far as we can tell from the figures, it is very improbable that the British taxpayers will be called upon at all.
  Mr. BAIRD: If we undertake the guarantee, we must provide for it.
  Mr. MORRELL: It is a liability we may have to meet, but there is no actual cash to be provided until we are called upon to meet it, until the Government of Soudan say they are unable to pay the interest. I believe we shall find that among the good deeds of the Government, none will be more remembered than this loan to the Soudan. It will be one of the most efficient means of developing and aiding the greatest British industry, and I think the hon. Member opposite did very well to try and keep the party spirit out of this Debate and to suggest that this will be
  442
  welcomed, as I believe it will be, by men of all parties as an admirable project on the part of the Government.
  Sir F. BANBURY: One of the hon. Members who has spoken made the statement that Lancashire did not want Protection, but was prepared to do everything she required under the Free Trade system. He also went on to say that this was not Protection. Suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come down and offered to vote money for the cotton mills in Lancashire. That, it would be said, was not Protection. Then, the only conclusion I can draw is that when bounties are given for the benefit of Lancashire, it is not Protection, but if they are given elsewhere, they constitute the worst form of Protection. It only illustrates what one frequently finds out in the course of a long life, that circumstances alter cases. What is a very bad thing when you are going to get nothing out of it yourself wears quite a different aspect when you are going to reap the benefit. The hon. Member who last spoke, talked about the Development Fund, and stated that a certain amount of money had been spent upon agriculture and other industries in England. I have always been opposed to the Development Fund. I have always felt that money spent in that way was wasted on official salaries, and on a variety of fads and experiments which did no good to anyone. In my part of the world, all that has happened as a result of the Development Fund, is that they have tarred the roads, and as I still have horses and not a motorcar, I cannot get to the railway station without the risk of my horses falling. Consequently the tarring of the roads has made me use bad language at times.
  I am rather surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite are apparently going to support this proposal. A short time ago, we heard them strenuously denouncing doles to landlords and other people. Now this is a dole to Lancashire, and if it passes—I am not at all sure that it will—it must be so described. I am against doles of all sorts. I voted with hon. Gentlemen opposite last Friday. I shall vote against this to-day, and I shall expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to be against this Bill. But apparently circumstances alter cases. With regard to whether or not this particular measure is going to have the effect which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway seem to think it will have,

  443
  may I ask one question? When this cotton is produced in the Soudan, it will have to be sold. What guarantee is there that it will be sold to Lancashire? It will be disposed of in the open market. It will go to the highest bidder, and the result may unfortunately be that the money which is contributed by England will go to assisting France or some other country which has cotton manufactures.
  Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: In that case where does Protection come in?
  Sir F. BANBURY: It will not come in in that case, but the attempt will remain, and it will have been a very bad attempt to establish a bad system of Protection. It will have been done in an unbusiness-like way, and when things are done in that way they generally fail, and they will continue to fail, as they deserve to. I think I have shown we are embarking upon a policy which may not lead to the results anticipated by the promoters of the Resolution and by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. Next I come to the statement made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell), that no money was going to pass. That may be so or not. I really do not know. It depends upon whether the industry is successful, and whether the Soudanese are able to pay the interest on the loan. But that does not alter the fact that we are liable for a sum of £105,000 a year. We have backed the bill. I believe some young men are foolish enough to think that if they put their names on the back of a bill it does not matter, and that they will never be injured because the person who asked them to do so will provide the money when the bill falls due. But they are often deceived, and it is quite possible that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may himself be deceived, and that when the time comes we shall have to find a certain portion, if not the whole, of this money. At any rate, the Soudanese could not get the loan without the English guarantee, and, therefore, we are losing our credit for this particular purpose. I was not here when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his speech, but I want to ask him one question; perhaps he will forgive me if he did deal with the point in my absence. Something was said that the loan would terminate in thirty years. I do not know where the sinking fund is to come from except from the Soudanese—I assume it will come from them. Of
  444
  course, 3½ per cent. will not provide both sinking fund and interest at the rate at which we shall have to borrow. I want to know if there is some special way of providing for the sinking fund in addition to the 3½ per cent.?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then I need say no more on that point. But it seems to me that with an expenditure of £195,000,000 a year this is the wrong time to enter into, shall I say, a speculation in foreign countries—a speculation which may be to the advantage of Lancashire but which may not. Lancashire is such a disciple of Free Trade that it would have been better if we waited a little until we came to more prosperous times owing to Free Trade before we embarked upon this expenditure of money. I have always endeavoured to restrict expenditure on whichever side of the House it has been advocated—unless, indeed, it was for Imperial defence. I have not changed by opinion. The longer I live in the world, the longer I listen to the Budget statements of the right hon. Gentleman, the more I am convinced that if we are to maintain our position the first thing we have to do is to retrench. I see no signs of retrenching in this particular policy, and if there is a Division I shall vote against the Resolution.
  Mr. BARTON: I was astonished to hear the observation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could no longer be described as a Free Trader, as this was a proposal in the direction of Protection. But I have long since learned that a Free Trader is not necessarily a fool, and that it is quite within the sphere of the operations of a Free Trade system to take every reasonable and proper measure for the development and expansion of your trade. This is a proposal which would tend to insure the trade of Lancashire. I cannot see myself that, apart from that great interest, it is at all likely we should have had such a Resolution as this put forward merely in the interests of the Soudan. Here we have a great industry; we claim for it that next to agriculture it is the greatest of our industries. It has a great prospect before it, but it is always open to a great danger, and that danger arises from the narrow limits of supply of its raw material. I do not think that anybody interested in the trade of Lancashire has any serious fear of our power to compete in all the great markets of the world, but I do believe that many entertain a fear

  445
  based upon the restricted nature of the area of supply of the raw material. We have this proposition tending to remedy that very great danger, and I am quite convinced that, on all sides, there will be a realisation that this is a sound business proposal. I believe it will be accepted by men of all shades of opinion, both on tariff and on politics as a sound and wise decision of the Government. From that point of view I desire to thank the Government for the step they have taken, but I have a grievance against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He made a speech so clear and covered the ground so fully that everything since then has been mere redundancy, and, therefore, I must content myself with thanking the Government for this proposal.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his rather refreshing experience in introducing a scheme to the House which has met with universal approval. My hon. Friend on my right says "No." I suppose, therefore, he is going to criticise the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. But the fact remains that, as regards the general outline, there appears to be a large measure of agreement throughout the House as to the advisability of this proposal. We are told that all the evidence goes to show that on its pure business side it is an excellent proposition. We have had figures showing good trade in the Soudan, excellent harbour facilities, and cotton already growing; therefore, it is clear we are not embarking on a mere experiment. It is proved that the place has a capacity for cotton production, but the main question is as to the apportionment of the money. When a deputation waited on the Prime Minister earlier in the year, figures were given as to the apportionment, and £1,000,000 out of the £3,000,000 was, we were told, to go to the Gezira Plain. Now only 2,000 acres are to be brought into cultivation out of something like 5,000,000 acres. Not only is this soil capable of irrigation, but it can be irrigated without great difficulty. It is not waterlogged, and the irrigation problem is a simple one. The assurances given by the Prime Minister to the deputation have now fructified in this proposal by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The masters are in favour of the proposal. The Cotton Growing Association has backed it for many years. You have this most remarkable fact that
  446
  both the Trades Union and the great Co-operative bodies in Lancashire have themselves subscribed large sums—in the case of the Trades Union £41,000, and in the case of the Co-operative Society £13,000—towards these objects. Therefore, so far as Lancashire is concerned, there can be no question as to the desire to secure this great object. As to the person mainly concerned in this proposal, so far as the guarantee goes, the British taxpayer, I am not at all certain that, if his wishes were more eloquently voiced here, he might not have something more to say upon this subject.
  It is clear that the proposal was well received in Lancashire, and as one who has the honour to sit for a Lancashire seat I should be the last person to find fault with it on that score. It is approved of in Lancashire, and I have no doubt it is approved of in the Soudan, because it is going to assist in the development of that country. But the proposal must be looked at as a business proposal from the point of view of the British taxpayer, and when we do so look at it, it seems to me that we have a little bit of difficulty if we accept the pure Free Trade point of view. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us a reason, a very admirable reason, why it was not desirable that this work should be undertaken by a purely commercial company. He said that if a commercial company undertook it you might run the risk of tapping the source of Egypt's prosperity, namely, the Nile. But suppose you had Lancashire capital involved in a large measure of development in Egypt, as you might easily have, you would have the security which under the present arrangement you have not, namely, that Lancashire herself would derive an advantage from the expenditure. We all know that the spinning and weaving of cotton is going ahead very fast in India. We have heard of the proposal to take off the 3½ per cent. duty, which would cause more commotion in Lancashire than the present proposal would cause joy. Spindles are rapidly going up in Japan, and what you might very well be doing as a result of this arrangement is producing cotton of which Lancashire would receive very little indeed. Under the plan I suggest you would have this security, that your growers who put capital into the Soudan would see that the cotton produced went into their own mills in Lancashire. Nothing of that kind is proposed. We are told that the cotton is to be sold in the open market,

  447
  and that nothing in the way of an option to purchase at a price is to be arranged. Therefore the British taxpayer has no security that when this money has been sunk and this advantage has been given to the Soudan, you are going to secure a very substantial advantage to Lancashire.
  The last speaker said that any money sunk by the Government in the development of trade was a sound thing. Would the hon. Member or the Chancellor of the Exchequer go so far as to say, supposing you found cotton-growing areas suddenly developed in America or in Argentina, that the Government of this country should use the taxpayers' money to develop the growing of cotton under a foreign flag and on foreign soil. The arguments they used certainly go so far as that. If you say that all money sunk for the development of a raw material is going to be good for British trade, or is a sound investment, then you cannot discriminate between money sunk for the growing of cotton in Egypt or the Soudan, and money sunk in America, or under a foreign flag for the same purpose. If you do discriminate—and I should personally do so, because I do not take the Free Trade ground—you can only do it on the ground that there is a community of interests between various parts of the Empire. That is a sound ground, but it is not taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They must therefore be prepared to face this: that the expenditure would be just as justifiable if the money were expended on a foreign soil. It is a proposal which, under the present conditions and with Lancashire requiring this kind of cotton, will certainly for the time be advantageous to the great commercial industry with which so many of us are directly or indirectly connected, and in which all who sit for Lancashire seats are immediately concerned, but it is very easy to conceive circumstances where money sunk in this way will not produce that beneficial effect to English industries. You are sinking it under conditions, as you think, of Free Trade, but you are getting no security that the benefit shall accrue. In these circumstances I am sorry that better care is not taken to see that the taxpayers' money is sunk in a way that will benefit British industries.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Should I be in order, Sir, in moving to insert before the word "Government" the word "British," so that this money shall be lent to the
  448
  British Government of the Soudan, and not to a foreign Government?
  The CHAIRMAN: I could not take that, because there is no British Government in the Soudan, it is a condominium.
  Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY: I only rise because of the remarks of the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Montague Barlow). I really did not know at what he was driving. This is an excellent proposition for developing the Empire.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is not the Empire.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: It is an option of the Empire. I think it is really part of the soil of the Empire.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Chairman says not.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: I dare say the hon. and learned Member knows as much about that as anybody else. This is not a selfish proposition on the part of Lancashire. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come forward with this proposal and had left Lancashire out altogether, or if it were proposed to grow some other product in the Soudan which would equally benefit the Soudan, I believe hon. Members opposite would all support him. Dragging Lancashire in as if it were the suggestion entirely of Lancashire, is not quite fair. The thing is a proposition from the Empire point of view, and, whatever was grown in the Soudan, I should be in favour of guaranteeing this loan to develop the trade of the Soudan. Incidentally, of course, it helps Lancashire, because we want cotton. We do not want a monopoly in cotton; we are quite willing to let Japan and America and every country in the world come and buy cotton. Lancashire can afford to give as good a price for cotton as any country in the world, and if we cannot afford to give the price asked for it we will not have it. The last speaker seemed to think that, because we guarantee a loan in the Soudan, therefore we ought to compel the Soudanese to sell us the cotton at a lower price than we get it elsewhere. If you confine the cotton grown in the Soudan to Lancashire it means that you are going to protect Lancashire and sell the cotton to Lancashire at a lower price. We want the Soudanese to do the very best for their country, and we are going to help them by guaranteeing the loan. That is all this amounts to, and I think it is a very excellent proposal. A great deal has been said about Lancashire wanting Egyptian

  449
  cotton. No doubt we do want it. If we can develop the Empire by guaranteeing a loan to the Soudan, and so increase and enlarge trade there with a growing population, it will be a splendid thing, not only for the cotton trade, but for every trade in the country. If we can incidentally help the cotton trade, no one ought to complain.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I hope I shall not be deemed unpatriotic if I join issue with some of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee in their attitude towards this Resolution. Only two hon. Gentlemen, other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have addressed the Committee who did not hail from Lancashire. Both those hon. Gentlemen have protested against the Resolution. Therefore I think the hon. Member for South Salford, when he said there was general agreement in what he is pleased to call the House, on the subject of this Resolution, will see that there is only general agreement, because those who have not been marshalled in force this evening to support this locally interesting Resolution are waiting presently to support by their votes a Resolution the provisions of which they know very little about, and because those who do not happen to be Lancashire Members have had little opportunity of stating their views. I should like to offer my opinion, for what it is worth, on the subject of whether or not this is protection either to an English industry or to a Soudanese industry. What I would say with regard to that is that if this is to promote the artificial production of an artificially cheap raw material, and the production of that raw material is going to be promoted by a loan of money at less than the current market value of that money, it is clearly protection. It is not only protection, but I suggest it is a preference of a most undesirable kind. It is a preference to one particular British industry, and I would ask why should other British industries be left out in the cold? It is also protection for the Soudanese agricultural industry, which the agricultural industry in this country does not enjoy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer doubts the soundness of that criticism. Reference has been made to the Development Fund, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has that in mind, but I venture to remind him that Grants out of the Development Fund are not made directly towards the promotion of any branch of the agricultural industry in this country.
  Mr. MORRELL: What about horse breeding?
  8.0 P. M.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Assuming that light horse breeding is a branch of the agricultural industry, about which I have my doubts, if the hon. Member means the sort of horses that are encouraged by this particular Grant, I will only say the supposed object of that is to provide horses for the Army, an object which, by the way, is by no means being secured. I still suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Development Fund is not applied, and is never intended to be applied, towards the direct promotion of the agricultural industry, which would involve individual agriculturists, as a direct result, being better off than they were before the Grants. In any case, why is this preference given to one particular British industry? Why should other British industries, many of which are far less prosperous than the cotton industry, be left out in the cold? Let me give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an illustration—which, by the way, he forgot in the course of his Budget speech yesterday—the tinplate trade. The tinplate trade is suffering from a very severe depression to-day, and one reason of that is that it has to pay exceptionally high prices for its raw material. In this particular case the Chancellor of the Exchequer is enabling the cotton industry to get its raw material cheaper than it has been possible to produce it before. It is the gambling of Indian Rajahs in tin which has sent up the price of tin to something like five times its proper market value. I happen to know something about the subject, as I help in controlling the largest tinplate works in this country.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is the trouble in the Balkans. Some of our very best customers at present are not in a position to buy and are not giving orders.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I admit that that is one of the reasons, but it is a far less important reason than at least three others, of which I have stated one. But I should soon get out of order if I started a long discussion on the reasons for the depression in the tinplate trade. What I chiefly want to impress upon the Chancellor and on the Committee is that charity should begin at home, and by this particular Bill, on his own admission, he is providing money at a cheap rate of interest to promote, by irrigation and otherwise, the

  451
  agricultural industry of the Soudan. The great curse of agricultural industry to-day in this country is the lack of cheap money. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to provide cheap money for the agricultural industry in Egypt, why does he not provide some public money—considerably less than £3,000,000 would be acceptable—to provide, either through the medium of agricultural credit banks or otherwise, cheaper money to ensure the development of rural industry in Great Britain? I should also like to ask, in connection with a branch of agricultural industry in respect of which we are clamouring for public money to-day, why he is not prepared to give it similar support—namely, the development of the sugar beet industry.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Prime Minister has promised that.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: If that is so, I hope that we shall have some confirmation from the right hon. Gentleman. I suggest that we have no definite promise whatever in respect of a Grant—call it bounty or not, as you like—towards the development of sugar beetgrowing in this country. Assuming that there is, I would ask whether a Grant should not be forthcoming towards the promotion of a far more important industry than any that has been mentioned, namely, corn growing? I am afraid I differ from some of my hon. Friends around me in holding that a bounty is not only a proper form of Protection, but is a form of Protection which is essentially necessary for the development of agriculture in this country. Assuming that a bounty is to be granted towards the promotion of any agricultural industry, I should like to ask why a bounty of a similar sort is not forthcoming which would enable English agriculturists to grow wheat at a certain profit to themselves, and so do something to ensure the national security, which is so severely imperilled to-day by the fact that four-fifths of its wheat supply comes from across the seas and may be interfered with in time of war? I regret that at a time when taxation is so onerous as it is to-day the Chancellor should ask the House to find £3,000,000 towards the preferential stimulus of one industry out of many in this country and by no means the most important, and towards the development of the agricultural industry in a foreign country—because it is a foreign country, even although we co-operate in its control
  452
  —when no such support is given to the far more important agricultural industry of Great Britain.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I make an appeal to the Committee now to let us get this Resolution, to enable us to introduce the Bill? There will be a Report stage, and the two stages together are tantamount really to a First Reading stage. There will be an opportunity for hon. Members to discuss it.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Answer some of the criticisms now.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the Committee would prefer me to occupy the remaining ten minutes in answering criticisms, I shall be happy to do so. The criticism of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) was getting into a very controversial discussion upon this procedure which is not strictly relevant to this, but would have been relevant to another issue which was disposed of last year. The hon. and learned Gentleman wants to know why I did not take the same course with regard to Uganda. This is a loan of which we are simply guaranteeing the interest. In the other case the money was actually advanced.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: In 1911 you put it into a Bill—into the Budget Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not quite recollect. In 1910 that also was the case where we were advancing the money. I am certain I have not proposed anything of this kind before. The only case of this kind has been the guaranteeing of the Transvaal Loan by the late Government, where I think there was a guarantee of interest. The two cases given by the hon. and learned Gentleman are cases where we actually advanced the money, and we advanced it in both cases out of a surplus. My hon. and learned Friend also asked me about the legal position of the Soudan. At present there is a condominium. Its position in reference to this country is a very anomalous one. Lord Kitchener is purely a Consul. He exercises very great authority there, but it is a very anomalous position. We have a joint authority with Egypt over the Soudan. I should be very sorry to enter into anything like a disquisition as to the actual relation of this country to the Soudan, and I am not sure it would be desirable to do it.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: To what Government are we going to give the guarantee—the Egyptian Government?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: To the Government of the Soudan.
  Mr. STANIER: Who are the landlords of this land that is to be taken? Are they syndicates or are they the Soudanese Government?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think a very considerable part is owned by the natives, but there is a part which I think belong to the Government as well. There are no syndicates at all; they are purely native owners of the land, and if assistance be given them by way of irrigation it will be on such terms as Sir Reginald Wingate will make, and it will undoubtedly be a source of revenue to which we are looking forward to pay interest on the loan. It will be worth their while paying very considerable dues or tolls to the Soudan Government in return for the very great services rendered to them by the canal. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst) I think he is the very last man in the world who should criticise this. He has been a very strong advocate of grants of money to the agricultural community of this country. The first Government that put on the Estimates anything in the nature of a development Grant to the agricultural industry is the present Government, and the hon. Member has always recognised that. I remember setting aside £400,000 in the Budget of 1909 for the purposes of development in this country. Probably he knows better than I do how much of that money has been voted at present for these purposes. He may say they are not purposes of which he on the whole approves, but they are purposes which the agricultural community have themselves sanctioned. They have asked for more money—that is natural; every interest does that—and I hope gradually they will get more assistance from time to time. Take one of the purposes which we then had in mind in connection with that Grant. Take afforestation—re-afforestation of waste land. That corresponds very largely with the purpose of this loan. I do not believe any portion of this will fall on the British taxpayer at all. In the other case a very considerable sum is falling annually upon the British taxpayer in the way of assistance to the agricultural community to develop the resources of the soil in this country, and I do not grudge a penny of it. It is a purpose which is well within the principles of Free Trade—the kind of work Free Traders can do very effectively. I hope the agricultural community will not
  454
  set the very bad example of resisting a Grant of this kind for the development of the resources of the Empire elsewhere.
  Question put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Thursday).

  NATIONAL THEATRE IN LONDON.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, there should be established in London a National Theatre, to be vested in trustees and assisted by the State, for the performance of the plays of Shakespeare and other dramas of recognised merit."
  In the year 1904, at a banquet of the Royal Academy, a distinguished actor used some words which I think may be regarded as an anticipation of the present occasion. The words were:—
  "In the presence of so many distinguished members of the Legislature I would venture to express a hope that on some fair spring afternoon, when, free from the graver cares of State, their minds may lightly turn to thoughts of love—to love of the arts—they may help us to the fulfilment of our legitimate aspirations, the endowment of a National Theatre—a theatre which should uphold the noblest traditions of the British stage, where the best and worthiest dramas of British authors should be performed, and to which a sound school of gratuitous dramatic teaching should be attached."
  This is the fair spring afternoon, and for the purpose in view we could hardly have a fairer, because, as the newspapers have been pointing out, it is the traditional anniversary of the birth and death of Shakespeare, and with the support which I know is drawn from all parties in this House I may venture to hope that we may put aside the discords of politics and turn our thoughts to love—to love of the arts. We who have taken some interest in this movement are thinking more of this day three years than we are of to-day. This day three years there will be celebrated a festival throughout a large part of the civilised world—the tercentenary of the death of Shakespeare, which festival, if we play our part in it, as I hope we shall do, may be utilised for the purposes of peace in the world. Along with everyone else, I have long been aware that the name of Shakespeare is great, not only in English literature but in German. But I confess that until I came to think over what I should say this evening, and to review the facts as they stand at the moment, I had no idea of the depth and breadth of the influence of Shakespeare, and therefore of our country, in the literature in which the German youth is

  455
  brought up. I hold in my hand advance sheets of the "Shakespeare Jahrbuch," and in that volume, shortly to be published, there will appear statistics which, from more than one point of view, are worth recording. To take the first typical example, I find that in Germany "Hamlet" was performed, in the year 1912, 148 times by no fewer than fifty-two theatrical companies, an average of about three times for each company; "The Merchant of Venice," 141 times by fifty-seven companies; "A Midsummer Night's Dream," 124 times by thirty-eight companies; "Othello," 119 times by fifty-nine companies, and so on. The total may be summarised thus: There were 178 separate theatrical companies who performed twenty-one of Shakespeare's plays on 1,156 occasions. That is in a single year, and with German thoroughness these statistics are supported by a list giving particulars of all those separate occasions. Having looked through the list, I can vouch for it that these numbers are not made up by taking into account the performances of amateur companies, but that in the vast majority of cases we are dealing either with municipal or State theatres.
  There are two or three things remarkable in that list. In the first place, of course, there is the enormous influence of our poet in Germany, and the reality of the homage which will be paid to this nation as the nation of Shakespeare three years hence, and also for the purpose of this evening there is the very pertinent fact that those performances were not long runs, but were performances in repertory theatres to the number approximately of 180. I venture to think that we have nothing in this land of Shakespeare to show which is comparable in the least degree to the facts indicated by these figures. I turn now from the subject of the approach of the tercentenary of Shakespeare to the proposal which I bring before the House this evening, for which I trust the tercentenary will give the occasion of fulfilment. In the first place, I must say a few words with regard to the movement which is in progress with a view to the realisation of the idea. Our British way is for the State not to initiate but to crown the efforts of a movement privately initiated. I think we may say that the present movement was started by Matthew Arnold. Towards the end of his life there came to this country on a visit the Comédie Franchise. Some of
  456
  us may remember that visit. In connection with it Matthew Arnold used words which I would ask to be allowed to quote, because they put more tersely than I could hope to do the view of a great critic. He said on that occasion:—
  "We have a splendid national drama of the Elizabethan age, and a later drama which has no lack of pieces conspicuous by their stage qualities, their vivacity, and their talent, and interesting by their pictures of manners. We have had great actors. But we have been unlucky, as we so often are, in the work of organisation. It seems to me that everyone of us is concerned to find a remedy for this melancholy state of things, and that the pleasure we have had in the visit of the Comédie Francaise is barren, unless it leaves us with the impulse to do so, and with the lesson how alone it can rationally be done. 'Forget'—can we not now hear these fine artistes saying in an undertone to us, amidst their graceful compliments of adieux?—'your claptrap, and believe that the State, the nation in its collective and corporate character, does well to concern itself about au influence so important in national life and manners as the theatre. The people will have the theatre. Then make it a good one. The theatre is irresistible; organise the theatre.'"
  From the days of Matthew Arnold a certain number of distinguished men, pioneers, have written on this subject, but it did not take what I may describe as corporate form until the year 1905, when I well remember that a meeting was held at which a committee was appointed, and among those upon that committee, and very active on the sub-committee, which worked on the subject afterwards, were, two of the most distinguished literary Members of this House—Sir Richard Jebb and Mr. S. H. Butcher—and along with them, of course, Sir Henry Irving—two scholars, and an actor. The idea, in the view of that committee, was to found a memorial to Shakespeare. In the first instance, a statue was suggested. Alongside of that committee there was another aiming at a National Theatre, and in the year 1908 these two movements were brought together, and a great meeting was held, at which it was decided that there should be a single movement for a memorial to Shakespeare and for the foundation of a National Theatre. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. A. Lyttelton) undertook the office of treasurer. I regret to have to say that this evening the right hon. Gentleman is indisposed, and, greatly to his disappointment, cannot be present in support of this Motion. The immediate result was that a munificent donation of some £70,000 was obtained from an anonymous donor whom we now know to be Sir Carl Meyer. Other funds were added to that, amounting in all to nearly £100,000. Then the London County Council was approached for a site, and

  457
  among those who signed the appeal to the county council were, I believe, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present First Lord of the Admiralty.
  The idea was that the site of the present central offices of the County Council in Spring Gardens should be devoted to this purpose, when on the completion of its new building on the far side of the river the county council should migrate from its present offices. The county council was quite willing that that should be the destiny of the site. The land belongs to the Crown, and I believe that there are somewhat complicated conditions in connection with it, and the county council, of course, could not give to the trustees any better tenure than it itself held; and, owing to the difficulties involved, I understand that the Crown could not see its way to extend the duration of the lease. It was felt that to place a great national monument on anything short of a freehold site would be a mistake. Therefore those negotiations, though promising at one time, did not result in the obtaining of the prominent site which was felt to be necessary, before, under any favourable conditions, an appeal could be made for money, whether to the rich man, or for small sums from the masses of the people. I am allowed to say this evening that a most excellent site is now in view for which negotiations have progressed some distance. For obvious reasons I cannot give any further indication as to the where abouts of that site. All I can say is that the responsible persons believe that at no distant date, if the movement can be carried forward in the way that we hope, they may be in possession of one of the finest sites for the purpose that can be found in the Metropolis.
  There has been some criticism with regard to the delay which has occurred. That delay has been in a large measure advised, because it has been felt that it would be foolish to make any appeal until conditions were such as to make probable the success of that appeal. It was felt that, above all, two things were necessary: on the one hand, a site which could be pointed out to the donor; and, on the other hand—and feeling in regard to that has strengthened of late—that there should be some support, recognition, and sympathy from the Government of the country. That is the present position of the movement. There is a powerful body of trustees, a committee which has a considerable sum of money in hand, and the support of a large number of prominent
  458
  literary and political persons in this country. I think that a list of those who in one way or another have been associated with the movement and are Members of this House has been circulated. What I have to do now is to state with such precision as I can what it is we are contemplating, and to show why I believe that State assistance is necessary. Before definitely answering those two questions, I want very shortly to refer to two or three general considerations in the light of which I think that any answer which I may give to those two questions should be judged. I think that we ought to realise the enormous and increasing part which stage entertainment is playing in the life of our people. I have taken means to obtain such statistics as are available in regard to the administrative county of London. As far as I can find, there are no statistics of the average attendance at the places of entertainment, but we have available very close approximate figures obtained by the London County Council in regard to the seating accommodation, and I find—I think it was in the year 1911—that there were in the licensed theatres in the administrative county of London 67,000 seats, and in the music halls there were 73,000, making 140,000 altogether. I have not the figures in regard to the cinematograph halls. These figures I gather are not obtainable, but I think that they should be added, because anyone who has taken the trouble to go into these cinematograph shows, and to try to understand what is the nature of the entertainment now before the masses of our people, will realise that to an increasing extent what you have shown to the people there is what I may describe as mute drama, very crude, but drama, tragedy, comedy, and farce, increasingly it is drama; and what the people go for is to be amused with a play, a story, pictured before them without words, just as they might read a novel in order to obtain a story in words only, and without any illustrations, let alone flesh and blood before them.
  Therefore, I think anyone who has considered any of these cinematograph shows will think the number is not excessive, if we add something like 60,000 seats, so that you will have something like 200,000 seats—in what I would call, in the main, places of dramatic entertainment of one kind and another, of a higher or lower kind—available within the administrative County of London alone. If you say that

  459
  those places are filled with the population of Greater London, I am aware that the stranger comes to them, but, after all, the stranger in our hotels in London is more important from the point of view of filling the stalls than the pit, and in the main I take it that these seats are filled by those who live fairly close around Charing Cross. If you take the population of Greater London at seven millions, we see something like one seat for every thirty-five or so of the population. If you write off infants in arms, and those who are sick, I think you will come to the conclusion, especially if you allow for a certain number of places of entertainment outside the administrative county but inside Greater London, that it is not unfair to say that on the average each adult member of our population, man or woman, goes to places of dramatic entertainment probably once a fortnight, and not less than once in three weeks. I submit that those figures, which I admit are only approximate, show that the theatre may be having an influence, I will not say as great as that of the churches, but an influence which must be placed in the same order, so far as the amount of time which is given to receiving it is concerned.
  I am well aware, of course, that some who go to the churches never go to the theatres, and probably some who go to theatres never go to the churches, but we are concerned with the mass, and on the facts we are dealing with, I venture to make the statement that you must not underrate the magnitude of the part that the drama already plays, good or bad, whether you like it or not, in the social life of our people. As Matthew Arnold said, "The people will have the theatre; let us have it as good as we can." That is my view. Of course it is easy for the moralist to decry this, and to say that it is all a sign of the degradation and increasing degradation of our people. I think that there is a far more satisfactory and far more probable explanation. Frankly, I am an optimist in this matter. I believe that this is a healthy indication—it is crude I admit—of what is taking place. You have at the present time admittedly increasing leisure on the part of the vast masses of our people—shorter hours of work, increased time that is not devoted either to eating, sleeping, or working for their daily bread. Moreover, you have at the present time, as all will admit, an increasing monotony of employ-
  460
  ment among the vast mass of our people. Machinery, mechanical operations, division of labour, have brought that about, and also, with regard to the higher grades, the joint stock system, with the result that you have in the hands or in the brains of the comparatively few the burden of responsibility and of thought for great numbers.
  The result is that men are having less and less interest in the daily work by which they earn their bread, and they are driven to look for intellectual interest outside. I believe the immense vogue of football, and in our long evenings of drama, is a natural and a healthy result of that condition of things. Provided the leisure is well used, I am not at all sure that it is not in the long run a matter making for higher civilisation that we should be able to earn the necessary living by less consumption of the higher powers of the mind, and that we should enable to be devoted to the higher things which we have had handed down to us from the Greeks, an increased portion of the time not only of the few but of the great mass. I cannot help feeling that we have at the present time a great phenomenon in the change which inevitably comes to the course of industrial organisation and of industrial operations, and what we as a legislature have got to undertake, is not to attempt to stem that hunger and that interest in life, but to divert it into not only harmless but useful channels. There is just another point in regard to the general position to which I would like to refer. It is that, admittedly, the character of our education is changing. If I may put it shortly, there is a revolt against the excessive use of books. There is a demand for more concrete life in the teaching which we give, whether to children, adolescents, or adults. In science, long ago, you had the student turned to the laboratory, and away from the mere book. So it should be in literature. After all a composition was originally intended to be delivered, even poetry, certainly the drama.
  What great literary monuments of our race live at the present time? The Bible for one. Why? Because it is read in the churches aloud, and the music of our translation rings in the ears of our young people, and it is carried by them to their graves. Or take Scotland. Why is it that Burns knits together a nation? Because Burns is sung and quoted everywhere there is a Burns' club, and I am not quite sure where I can say there is not

  461
  one. With regard to Shakespeare, how is our Shakespeare really to live for the masses of our young people, and not merely to be a name, unless it be that they have had the opportunity of seeing the whole gamut of Shakespeare's genius. At the present moment they may see occasionally a play sometimes converted to a mere spectacle, and sometimes shown, I admit, with consummate art. But at the present moment the chance of seeing a play of Shakespeare is something equivalent to the turn of a private Member in the ballot; it comes once in a few years. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO, no."] It is a mathematical question, and I daresay the hon. Member thinks that mathematical calculations are hardly fit for literature. You have no chance, like the Germans, of seeing twenty-one plays in the year, and repeated in as many places. You have no chance of seeing, for instance, the series of the historical plays of Shakespeare acted in London, as they should from time to time. Those plays which are as much a national monument as Westminster Abbey itself were created by Shakespeare in the enthusiasm after the Armada and placed before England at that day a history dating from Cressy and Agincourt. What we want is education through our Shakespeare, and what we are seeking in our National Theatre is to teach literature, and not merely for amusement as a spectacle.
  The last general point to which I want to refer is what I will describe as the Imperial and National. John Richard Green it was who said that after the great authorised translation of the Bible had become general in the churches of our country, the people of England became the people of a book, that is to say, that that language was enriched by references which all could understand. I remember talking to the former Father of this House, Sir John Mowbray, and on many occasions he used to tell me, in the fifties of last century there would be heard in this House on almost every evening classical quotations in the original Latin, if not in the original Greek. At that time it was possible because most men in this House passed through the same mill, and the quick and pregnant way of calling up an idea in their mind was to refer to some well-known quotation from "Horace," which had been the companion of their youth. I venture to say that a nation is held together by the fact that you can appeal to the members of it with
  462
  a common history, if you will to a common religion, and to a common literature, and for that reason, I want as an Imperialist that our British race, coming to this London, visiting it either as Rhodes scholars or as Statesmen responsible for the Dominions, that when any one of them come here on a pilgrimage, it may be once or twice or thrice in their lifetime, that he should have the opportunity of seeing the great national dramas presented, not a chance one or two of them in the course of a long time, but a series of them, so that a serious study may be made of them, and that a term may be kept of national literature just as you keep a term at the university.
  From the Imperial point of view I believe that is necessary for another reason, and that is that our language is in danger of breaking into dialects. We live at great distances one from the other, in Australia, in South Africa, in America, and here in this land. There are constant evidences that even in these days of the telegraph, that there is in progress a divergence of standards of language in those different countries. It is true, to a considerable extent, the same printed language is read, but, after all, in China we have a language which when written can be understood by every educated man in China, but when spoken breaks up into dialects which can be understood only by the men of a particular district. If we wish to retain a language which shall be, when spoken, and not merely when written, one, then we must have a standard for that language, and the way in which you are to maintain that standard is by having it heard pronounced by those who have studied it, and to have heard it you must have it heard as expressing its literature in some such central position, as a National and Imperial Theatre would have in London, and which might be visited and would be visited by the vast mass of Americans or Provincials, or of men from the Dominions who visit this country. Those are the broad objects that we have in view. The hon. Member for Hyde (Mr. Neilson), who will second this Motion, will put before you practical points which have come within his experience, and which I do not pretend to understand as he understands them.
  There are a few practical objections I wish to meet. What is it precisely that we are setting out to do? An hon. Member who met me in the Lobby the other day told me he was sorry he could not be here

  463
  because he would have the greatest pleasure in opposing me, "because," he said, "your object is to either endow a lot of rich actors who do not want it, or a lot of second-rate actors who do not deserve it, and to make an income for a number of second-rate novel writers whose books will not sell." I venture to say that those who criticise thus have not really and fully understood what it is we are aiming at. May I just read the six objects which the Committee of the Trust have kept steadily before them, and have placed before all whom they approached. They say that their main objects are: (a) To keep the plays of Shakespeare in the repertory of the theatre; (b) to revive whatever else is vital in English classical drama; (c) to prevent recent plays of great merit from falling into oblivion; (d) to produce new plays, and to further the development of the modern drama; (e) to produce translations of representative works of foreign drama, ancient and modern—translations and not merely adaptation; and also (f) to stimulate the art of acting through the varied opportunities which it will offer to the members of its company. In regard to this may I just say that our idea is that a National Theatre should place the plays of Shakespeare, the whole of them, with a few exceptions, before the people, at any rate, in three years, and that it should revive whatever else is vital in English classical drama. How many people of the present time have seen, for instance Bulwer Lytton's "Money" or the play of "Caste"—a certain number, but the vast number of people go to see anything which is for the moment popular and which has been advertised. If you had a National Theatre in which you had a series of plays selected right away from the time of Marlowe to the present, so that they might be studied in historical sequence and compared for the purposes of study, people would go to see those things and to learn about them, and the effect would be that they would see our literature and our drama as a whole, and not merely have isolated plays in connection with them.
  "To prevent recent plays of great merit falling into oblivion"—everyone knows that every year or two you have a striking or even perhaps a great play produced. That play runs for a hundred or a hundred and fifty nights. At the end of that time you have exhausted the public for that purpose, and five years afterwards a
  464
  young person coming along has no chance whatever of seeing that play. The play is dead, forgotten, and perhaps buried, instead of being saved, as it might be, by a great National Repertory Theatre, and added to the list of those which count in the national literature. I have been asked why we do not make this also an opera house as well as a theatre. I very much hope that that red-herring may not be drawn across the trail, because, in the first place, opera means that you would have a totally distinct company from the theatrical company needed to work the National Theatre. You are dealing with a different public, and you have not got an educational ground of the same kind as you have in the theatre. I do not want to deal with the matter at large, but I may say that that matter has been very carefully thought out by those who are in charge of this scheme, and they have come to the conclusion that the two things cannot be mixed. An Amendment is to be moved by the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. Lynch). I am not in the least antagonistic to the idea which I believe is contained within that Amendment. The only thing I have to say is that it seems to me that for the esoteric drama, for the drama which necessarily may be in advance of its time, there should be some appropriate stage, but it can hardly be a national stage. For this reason, although I sympathise with the hon. Member's aims, I believe that his Amendment does not in the least traverse the case which we put forward for a National Theatre. Our idea is that a theatre of this kind should be popular and educational, that you should allow schools opportunities for attending en masse and to form the whole audience on occasion.
  9.0 P.M.
  I do not believe that it would have any evil influence on dramatic enterprise of a private character. This would be a school for drama. There would be no great salaries for stars of the first order. The experience of the Théàtre Francais is that when a dramatist has obtained a certain celebrity, a certain power in his or her art—has obtained, so to speak, a certain monopoly value—as often as not, as the great Sarah Bernhardt did, he or she will migrate, and become a star or central celebrity for the rival theatre. This is a case in which, like so many others, if you cast your bread upon the waters you will find it again. Why do we trust not to the private donor, not to the mass of small subscriptions, but to State aid? I

  465
  hope I need not argue the question that endowment is necessary if you are to have anything in the way of such a theatre as I have been describing. The effort has been made again and again in this country to run a great repertory theatre, but notwithstanding the enterprise, notwithstanding the losses incurred and accepted by those who initiated it, we cannot agree that at the present time we have anything approaching the theatre at which we aim, or even the theatre which has been realised in France and in Germany. The sum of £500,000 has been put as the cost of such a theatre—£250,000 to bring in the £10,000 a year subsidy which has been found necessary in the case both of the Théâtre Francais in Paris, and of the Court Theatre in Berlin; £100,000 as the cost of the site, £100,000 for the building, and £50,000 for equipment. I imagine that the site and the building may quite probably cost more. I am quite certain that the equipment would cost more.
  Therefore, we believe that, as in other countries, there might be some sharing between the private donor and the State, and we ask that the State should do something in the way of an annual subvention to meet what I believe would be, if that subvention were once promised under certain conditions, the magnificent generosity that would be called out, not only in this country, but in the Dominions and probably in foreign countries, in connection with the celebration of the tercentenary three years hence. We make Grants for universities, and those Grants are met by the fees of students. Why should we not make a Grant to what we regard as a school of literature, which should be met by payments for entrance in order to see presented great works? That you place the State in competition with private enterprise is nothing new. You already build some of your battleships in Government dockyards, and a greater number in private dockyards. You exchange even your constructors between the national dockyards and private dockyards. And so it might be with your actors. In conclusion, I believe that a small Grant made by the State would have the effect, in not a long term of years, of stimulating the drama throughout the country by, in the first place, cultivating the public, in the second place, training actors, and in the third place, holding up a high standard. I believe that these are functions in which the State may
  466
  legitimately take the lead, and with that object I have brought forward the Motion which I now beg to move.
  Mr. NEILSON: I beg to second the Motion which has been so ably put before the House by the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division. It gives me great pleasure that this matter has at last been brought to the floor of the House of Commons. I remember that eleven years ago a comprehensive scheme for a national opera was laid before Gentlemen who now sit on both Front Benches in this House, who, after examining it, came to the conclusion that the time was not yet ripe for such a scheme. There has been a great deal of propaganda work in regard to national opera and national drama since that time. I have often found, when the matter of the national opera and national drama has been mooted, that those who are in favour of it have been very modest, indeed so modest as really not to call forth any enthusiasm in the people whom they wished to approach. Now that the matter has been brought to the floor of the House of Commons I sincerely hope that, if the Government are going to give it their blessing, they will do so, because it is a great big scheme that will inspire enthusiasm all over the land. I can imagine a national drama house dedicated to Shakespeare, not tucked away in a corner of some place in the crowded centre, but where there is plenty of air and space round about it, such as you see at Wiesbaden. I should like the house itself to be an architectural monument, not only to Shakespeare, but in some form to nationalised architecture here. I should like the stage to be of such a nature that people all over the country would be interested in it, not only in the mechanism of the stage itself, but in the productions that could, having such a stage, be put before the public. There is no doubt that in Hungary the stage of Buda-Pesth is one spoken of in many little country towns. The people discuss it and its mechanism, and when they come to Buda-Pesth they like to go to the national opera, because in all probability they will see the Asphalae system in operation. That system is one of hydraulics. The stage is raised by hydraulics twenty feet above and twenty feet below the level of the stage, it is in many sections, and can be thrown into any position in which they wish to mount the drama. There was the Kroll's Opera House, in Berlin, that was

  467
  reconstructed some years ago with the interest of the Kaiser. This is also a house which attracts numbers of people to it to see its productions, because they can be so sumptuously mounted, and mounted in a different way to where you have only the old encumbrance that was called a stage.
  I believe that the lighting of a theatre can call forth enthusiasm in people. Indeed it is a matter which is hardly ever spoken of, or at the end of a review in our great papers of some big drama of Shakespeare, it gets perhaps a line or two, saying that this sunset was very fine, or, on the other hand, that this sunset was very bad—very often the latter. The lighting at Buda-Pesth is astonishing. I do not want to go into details, but I may tell the hon. Members to what a fine art this matter has been reduced, what science there is, and what very fine artists are all the people connected with the lighting department at Buda-Pesth. There, the whole of the lights on the stage can be worked from a machine no larger than a type-writer, and the man working the machine can be in full view of the stage all the time without being seen by the audience. Scenery can inspire enthusiasm. In the old days of Stansfield in this country the scenic artists that were gathered round Covent Garden and Old Drury were men that really brought forth pæans of admiration when new productions were brought forth. I remember not very long ago when "Julius Cæsar" was presented in London. We had there a production that really was worthy of the most critical attention of admirers. Alma Tadema was brought there to design the scenes, and all the properties and the scenic effects. Indeed, to have Shakespeare mounted in such a way that not even the most critical could possibly carp at what was produced before them would lend an added interest to the production of our Shakespearean plays. Archæologically we can inspire enthusiasm in a National Drama House by the way costumes are made, and properties that are akin to costume. Indeed, the Mover of the Resolution quoted somebody saying that what we needed in our drama was the organisation that you see in the Court Theatre in Berlin. That a new play is read is something very rare I think—I am only speaking from hearsay—in our theatres here. I believe that when a new drama is read in the perfectly organised system in Germany, or Austria, or Hungary, every
  468
  person that is to be interested in the production and the performance of that play is called the first reading—the man that makes the shoes, the man that makes the wigs, the man that makes the armour; not only the actors and actresses, but the man that is attending to the lighting, the man paints the scenes—everybody is there to begin with.
  That can only be done when you have a National House, and get it so perfectly organised that you can afford the time to begin the rehearsals of the play in that way. In the equipment of such a theatre, I do not suppose we should for some time reach the stage that exists in Germany, where they do, twenty-one plays of Shakespeare in the season. An attempt could be made to do ten, but you could not do ten if you had a National House on a small scale. If you did ten Shakespearean plays in the first year of a first season, which would be about forty weeks, you would need room, system, and a perfect organisation as a preparation of those ten Shakespearean plays. Before the production of the first night you would need special rehearsals, special valet rooms, special singing rooms. All that has to be done apart from the stage. You would have to have special painting rooms, so that the work could be expedited by the scenic artists. What I mean by just giving the House these one or two details is to show the necessity of looking forward to a National Drama House on a big scale; on such a scale indeed that we should be proud of it. I sympathise to a very great extent with the Amendment which is to be moved by the hon. Member for West Clare. I want to see one of his national dramas done by our National Drama House. I do not think it ever will be done until we have a National Drama House. I refer to the Synge classic. There are many other plays that I want to see. There are two of Marlowe's plays I want to see, and if well done I am certain they would draw many many people to the theatre who perhaps have never heard of Marlowe's name before—Marlowe who was really the precursor of Shakespeare, and perhaps as fine a technician as Shakespeare. I want to see some of the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher. It is our habit to talk about some of these men without reading them. I think you could inspire people to read Beaumont and Fletcher if you produced one of their plays in the first season in the National Drama House.

  469
  The mover of the Resolution said that plays were put forward for 150 nights, excited the public, and then fell into desuetude. They come forward five or ten years afterwards, because, I daresay, the managers thought that the time had come for their revival. There are plays that I want to see done; there is "The Blot on the Escutcheon," a great play I want to see a National Opera House, that would have the pluck to give perhaps at some special performance, parts of plays that have been written for the theatre and that have not been done in their entirety. There are many scenes from Browning's plays which could be done. People should see them not once but two or three times for the ringing clear English that ought to be preserved, which would make us familiar with it, and perhaps would get the tongues of our scholars in the country chanting it. Besides that, I do not want to see "Becket" fall into limbo and never be heard of again. "Becket" is, I consider, a great drama. I should like to see the Drama House where we could see "Becket"; but it must be a National Drama House, a repertory theatre cannot do it, and indeed, those managers are passing away to-day who, like Sir Henry Irving, thought poetry in his house, and gave the poets of his day as fine a production as he did Shakespeare. There are something like fifty plays to be staged in the first forty weeks of the new Drama House, so I say we need a big scheme. I should like to see a drama house on the basis of that in Konigliches, and then I believe we should have a national school of acting. I am not now saying anything by way of criticism on any school of acting, such as exists to-day; they are doing splendid work there is no doubt, but when you enter a school of acting to-day you feel it is a struggle in which sometimes even the strongest quail, to try to make your way in the profession, especially when they know they have but little of this world's goods. If you had a National Drama House, a place where they act Shakespeare, all who enter can be certain that in the end of two or three years they will have some sure plane to which they can rise, and then after their names are made and they have passed out of the National Drama House into the profession, into the combination of other managers, they do so with a feeling of confidence. It seems to me if anybody loves the drama, loves Shakespeare, loves
  470
  our stage, we ought to aim in this great Drama House at the idea that everyone who has this higher feeling in them of being an actor or an actress, should have the opportunity of studying Shakespeare and of having his characters brought favourably before them.
  Every boy who enters a school in America enters it with the idea that if born in America he has as good a chance of becoming President as any other man. If in this country you can give the impression to the children that there is a chance for them to enter the National Drama House and of having the best instruction there, what a change it would make in our educational methods and in the habits of education which we have to-day. We should show them that all education is not merely commercial; and that it is not only a matter of humdrum existence, that it is not merely a matter of creating wealth and industry and mechanism, that it is not merely that they should look to a lot as mechanics, operatives, or agricultural labourers, but that there is something open in the intellectual sphere for them to rise to; something that they should be as proud to enter into as they are to enter the halls of Cambridge and Oxford. I feel deeply on this question; my heart has been in it for a long time, and I sincerely hope that those who to-night lay their case before the Government will not hesitate to ask for a lot. Let us do things as befits this great Empire which we mouth so much about. Do not let us have our House compared to some House in Germany like Stuttgart or Wiesbaden. Let it be a British House of which the United Kingdom may be proud, and, in the words of the Mover of the Amendment, let it be a House that will speak to Canada, South Africa, and the Antipodes.
  Mr. LYNCH: We have listened to two interesting and eloquent speeches. The effect of the first was rather to confirm my prejudice against the Motion, and the balance was not entirely restored by the eloquence of the second speaker. It is not that I am opposed to the principle of the Motion itself, but I am inclined to think the manner in which this object is sought to be carried out will be greatly detrimental to the best interests of the drama in this country. The same project has been tried in other countries—France, Italy, Spain, and elsewhere—and I believe only

  471
  in France has it been an undoubted success, and there it has been a success for many reasons which do not appertain to this country. The first project for a national theatre in France dates as far back as 1657. A certain d' Aubignac laid down rules, which still exist, and which are called the rules for the National Theatre, and which have had the effect throughout the centuries of crippling the free play of dramatic genius. Fortunately those rules were not carried into full effect because he committed the imprudence of writing a play himself and it was so bad that it greatly discounted the authority of his rules. Subsequently the Théâtre Francais was started, with the modest foundation of £12,000, and perhaps never for the glory of literature was £12,000 better spent. But there is this peculiarity in France: First of all, they have a wonderful language; we have a wonderful language, but it is rather a great quarry of a language from which a man of genius is able to command inexhaustible stores of richness, but the French language is better organised. By an attrition of thousands of meanings becoming macerated and distilled into finer essences, so that even to speak French correctly is to rise to a high level of literature. Then the French people have a wonderful capacity for acting. During my long residence in France I was often struck by the fact that in their daily lives they act continually, and that they have the theatrical conception so much before their eyes that on the stage they are entirely natural. Further, ancillary to their theatre is the Conservatoire, and by the Conservatoire system year by year are made efficient actors and actresses who are turned out eligible for the Comédie Francaise. None of these conditions hold good here, and it would be exceedingly hard to graft them on to our system. In Berlin it has been attempted, as was mentioned by the Proposer of this Motion, but in Berlin the system has been a ghastly failure.
  You can hold up to us no greater warning than this Berlin system and this desire to Prussianise our institutions. The Schauspielhaus is one of the innumerable ways of glorifying that stupendous Prussian system. Who are the Berlin dramatists? Where is their great national drama? Where is their great and inspiring work? Why, their best plays are all adaptations from the French, and when they do adapt plays from French authors
  472
  they invariably choose second-rate writers. If you were to take a retrospect of the plays produced in the National German Theatre you would find that the plays in which the German public are most interested and to which they are most attracted are bad adaptations from second-rate French writers. The attempt to establish a National Theatre in Spain almost killed the national genius of Spain in this respect, which afterwards found such extraordinary expression in the works of Lope de Vega and Cervantes. I join issue with what has been said in regard to Shakespeare, for this reason that if such a national drama had been in existence in Shakespeare's time, I doubt whether he would have had a chance of being represented. We always read history backwards and we always think of Shakespeare through the perspective of three hundred years, and imagine that that was Shakespeare as he appeared before his own contemporaries. That was not the opinion Shakespeare held of himself. All through his wonderfully interesting sonnets one finds a complaint about the low esteem in which he was held by the great patrons of his own time. Those sonnets are worth reading, not so much for their æsthetic value as for the glimpse they give into the character of the great writer. In the XXV. Sonnet he says:—
  "Let those who are in favour with their stars,
  Of public honour and proud titles boast,
  Whilst I, whom fortune of such triumph bars,
  Unlooked for joy in that I honour most."
  In the LXXX. Sonnet Shakespeare writes:
  "But since your worth (wide as the ocean is)—
  The humble as the proudest sail doth bear,
  My saucy bark, inferior far to his,
  On your broad main doth wilfully appear."
  and in the LXXXVI. Sonnet he says:
  "Was it the proud full sail of his great verse,
  Bound for the prize of all too-precious you."
  Those are the most remarkable passages from the different sonnets of Shakespeare, and they all make the complaint that he was unrecognised by his own immediate friends and patrons, and held in lower esteem than by those who are now hardly ever mentioned in the same breath as Shakespeare. I have seen great representations of Shakespeare's plays, and if I were to make a confession I would say that perhaps at no other plays have I been so unutterably bored. The fault was not with Shakespeare, and the fault may not be entirely my own, but it was due to the travesty of Shakespeare which is generally given. I once saw a great performance of "Cleopatra," and I remember that the

  473
  only thing which came vividly before my mind was that at a certain moment two horses were led upon the stage. If I remember this I have some excuse, because I had ceased to look at the play so much as at the audience, and the only moment the audience showed a glimpse of real interest was when those circus horses were brought upon the stage. I have also seen performances of "A Midsummer Night's Dream." Now, if there is any play which should be run trippingly off the tongue, a play as light as gossamer wings, and as rapid as the dance of fairy feet, it is "A Midsummer Night's Dream." Instead of this the play was produced in a style as portentious and heavy as a Front Bench speech.
  My objection, however, has a deeper base. Certainly I approach Shakespeare's name with veneration, and I am inclined to say with Byron:—
  "I beg his British Godship's humble pardon,
  If in my extremity of rhyme's distress
  I touch a single leaf where he is warden."
  But after all I owe allegiance to something greater than Shakespeare, something more stimulating and real and actual, and that is my aspiration for the free development of literature. I doubt whether Shakespeare is a great model for the literature of the time to come. All through Shakespeare's works there is in the construction of his plays, the fairy tale model. Shakespeare was not a man greatly alert to the more modern influences even of his own time, and so far from being the great eponym and governor of English literature for time to come, he was rather the closure and the apotheosis of the feudal system, which he did so much to glorify. Throughout the whole course of Shakespeare's plays one never finds the stirring of a modern spirit. Shakespeare was the helot of feudalism, inspired, but the inspired helot of feudalism. Therefore I think Shakespeare is a bad model for a great National Theatre for the years that are to come. Then, proceeding from Shakespeare, what representatives have we, and how would a National Theatre foster them? The name of Burns, the great representative of Scotch literature as Shakespeare is one of the great representatives of English literature, naturally occurs to us. Had such a theatre as here proposed been in existence in Edinburgh in Burns's time would it have fostered Burns's genius? No. Would not the great author of "Holy Willie's Prayer," of "The Jolly Beggars." of "Tam o'Shanter," of "Hallowe'en"; would not
  474
  the great democratic poet of Scotland have found all the massed and organised forces of a great National Theatre used to crush him out and even to deny him his genius. Even if they had consented, in view of the celebrity of his name, to represent something from Burns it would have been taken from the model, not of "Holy Willie's Prayer" or of "The Jolly Beggars," or of "Tam o'Shanter," the from "The Cottar's Saturday Night," the one caput mortuum of the greater works of Burns. When opinion becomes organised and established, it has already become moribund. There is something in organisation, particularly of literature, which is fatal to what is the very spirit and essence of literature; and, taking the example of our universities, which has already been cited, I would ask: what have our universities done for literature? Can any man point out any great writer in the English language who has been a real and veritable product of any of our universities? [HON. MEMBERS: "Tennyson."] Well, yes; I have a prejudice against Tennyson perhaps on that very account, but I am quite content to give you a present of Tennyson.
  One reason why universities, and therefore why a great national drama, are unable to foster great literature is because great literature does not depend upon rule and convention. The great writer, perforce, must, first of all, have been a great rebel, not because he is an iconoclast, but because he is a forerunner, and because by his sensitive nature he is the first to be impatient with that which has done its service, which has passed its time, and which only now extends the cold hand of a mouldered past to kill and restrain the flight of genius of those yet warm with life. Great literature and great drama depend upon personality, that peculiar, subtle, but irrefragible charm of personality; and that can never be bestowed by any organised and pompously endowed national theatre or university. I had drafted an Amendment to the Motion, but I do not propose to move it so as to keep the Debate within the limits of that Amendment, because I am doubtful still whether I am wholly opposed to the spirit of the Motion. I believe, if this National Theatre could be rescued from a certain type of trustee, it might possess many valuable points—the dry-as-dust trustee, the trustee educated too much in mere book-learning, the trustee attaching too much importance to the university, or the trustee holding up

  475
  Tennyson as a great national poet. If he were a trustee of flesh and blood, or a trustee endowed with some of the spirit of Robert Burns, if that were possible, if he were a trustee who would look upon all our institutions with a candid eye and touch them fearlessly with a little rod of light, then the National Theatre might be saved.
  Who are our dramatists? We have George Bernard Shaw, bubbling, shining, shimmering Shaw; Shaw, not, as I think, too heavily ballasted with thought, but Shaw, happy as Autolycus in a basket of trinkets—pointed jests and laughing jibes. What is the genius of Shaw? The genius of Shaw is simply this: Here is an irresponsible, audacious Irishman who comes to these English institutions so replete with every kind of sham and hypocrisy, and, looking on these moribund institutions and social humbugs with a calm and candid eye, simply gives voice to the impression of the innocent natural man. That is the genius of George Bernard Shaw. Then, of other great writers, one could mention Galsworthy. Galsworthy is a man of ideas, but I do not know that Galsworthy would be encouraged by the National Theatre. When I saw him I had to go to a little poky theatre whose very name I have forgotten, and although I found ideas, yet I found it was not altogether a theatre of flesh and blood. Galsworthy writes in the style of great morality plays, and simply clothes the great cardinal virtues and vices, instead of giving us living men and women of flesh and blood. Among those who have genius—both those have—I would bracket Zangwill, but Zangwill would be frowned upon by this National Theatre, because he finds it impossible in London to represent his own plays, especially those to which he has given most thought, and for the reason that they are impregnated by that thought. If Zangwill is unable now to find his plays represented because the critics frown upon them and the Censor frowns upon them—and the Censor is the type of your trustee—is there any hope that this national drama would represent the plays of Zangwill? Then there is growing up a fresh and natural school of Irish drama. Of those I have seen I am inclined to re-echo the words of an unknown admirer of Moliere:—
  "Bravo, Moliere, that is the true comedy."
  There, again, the Irish drama is always represented in poky little theatres, and
  476
  looked upon as not classical or literary enough for encouragement by the learned pundits of a National Theatre. Another man whose plays would not get encouragement would be Synge. One of his plays, "Deirdre," written at the instigation of his friends, because they thought he ought, as a national poet, to write a national representative drama, remains dead. The danger is that with this project of a great National Theatre, that delicate, iridescent, elusive thing called poetry, and that sensitive apparition called genius, that light, intangible but potent force of thought, might be crushed out by the dead-weight of this portentous edifice. I wish to save the situation by saying that I am not opposed to the spirit of the establishment of this great project, but, as Burns says, "Though I cannot see, I guess and fear." What I most fear is that this project, so pompously introduced—introduced, I mean, with such pomp and circumstance—will be somewhat too pompously managed, and will not encourage what is really vivid and true in the literature of to-day; and literature is moribund unless it takes its interest and stimulus from actual life, life more complex, more various, more instinct with quick, vivid feeling than that of Shakespeare's day. I fear that genius such as we want to encourage will not be discovered and encouraged by this project, but will rather be frowned upon, and a man will have his dramatic genius crushed out by another dead-weight added to the vis inertiae of our society. If it were possible to appoint a trustee such as I have indicated, who would make it his business actively to search for genius and encourage it, then we might have a theatre which would give a soul to the nation, which would lead its aspirations, and point its destiny.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I hope the Government will give serious attention to this Motion. It is very easy to describe this thing as a great measure of national regeneration. On the other hand it is easy to minimise it and regard it as a dilettante proposal. I venture to put before the Under-Secertary the suggestion that this is really a practical measure for the improvement of the drama, and for the creation of a high standard of the drama and of the performance of it. I suggest it will have a permanent usefulness in securing the continuous performance of good dramatic work, and performances of the highest order. The hon. Member who last

  477
  spoke seems to consider that the result of any such proposal would be to crush out all new merit, and that even Shakespeare, who had great difficulties of his own, in spite of which he managed to get his plays acted, with the result that they survived, would have found greater difficulty nowadays. He mentioned other forms of drama, which, under the proposed constitution of this National Theatre, he thinks would be utterly crushed out. But I take it that the business of those responsible would be to search out signs of dramatic merit wherever it presented itself, and to take care that it had its opportunity under the best possible conditions.
  The primary desire of those who promote this scheme is to secure that we should get continuous representation of our great national dramatist Shakespeare, and that the performance of Shakespeare's plays shall not attend upon an occasionally public-spirited management, or possibly on an altered public taste in one or other direction. There have, of course, been periods when there have been no representations of Shakespeare, whereas at other times, the representations have been fairly continuous. This theatre would be bound to produce Shakespeare's plays, and being a repertoire theatre it will be bound to produce a good many of them, so that we should have an opportunity of seeing our great dramatist under thoroughly satisfactory conditions. Not only should we secure a continuous performance and variety of plays of Shakespeare, but the scheme is designed, if I understand the promoters rightly, to afford an opportunity for the revival of other good plays which have lost their popularity for the time being. There are plays of the seventeenth century which might be revived. The hon. Member spoke with discouragement of the performance he witnessed of Shakespeare's play "Antony and Cleopatra." It might be possible to console him by a revival of Dryden's representation of "Antony and Cleopatra" under the title "All for Love; or, The World Well Lost"—a play of great literary merit and of great dramatic possibilities. Then, again, one would be sorry to suppose that the dramatic capacities of the eighteenth century were exhausted in "The School for Scandal," "The Rivals," and "She Stoops to Conquer." There may be other eighteenth century plays well worth revival. Again, there are more modern plays, such as that mentioned by the Mover—"Money"—a most admirable acting piece, as well as a
  478
  play of great literary merit. There are society plays which bring back the mid-Victorian period, and comedies which received in their day most admirable acting, and repaid it. I think we should not only get a constant and continuous production of Shakespearean plays, but we should have other dramatic riches disinterred from time to time, and produced for our satisfaction. I take it that the management of this theatre would be always on the look out for new genius, and that, so far from its being crushed and put aside, as is feared by the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch), their object would be, where any such promise showed itself, to take care that it had its opportunity and got its fair chance under the best conditions.
  10.0 P.M.
  We should get a school of drama—that is to say, the public would be continuously presented with good plays. Nobody can say that at this moment any dramatic standard is presented to the public. We have the melodrama, a most entertaining performance; we have the musical comedy, which begins with some semblance of a plot, and ends in a romp; and we have a type of drama, which I have been to see once or twice, admirably acted, in which a number of dreary looking persons in a very ill-furnished room say unpleasant things to one another during three acts, at the end of which time everyone in unhappy and nothing else has happened. I confess that that style of drama seems to be somewhat attractive at the present time, and there is some hope on the part of those who have had the misfortune to witness it that some more cheerful performance, in which human action is presented in a more amiable light and with more vivid results, may be presented in this theatre. Not only should we get a standard of drama but we should get a standard of acting. No doubt the acting of the present day is infinitely superior to that which I recollect in my youth—I mean the average acting—and that the performance throughout a piece of all the players is of an even merit which was quite unknown forty or fifty years ago, when my first experiences in the theatre began. But it must be a great thing for any great profession to have a great central school such as the Théâtre français represents. Anyone who goes to see the performances of those great actors and who watches them, sees how finished and complete their method is, and how by watching even an unskilled person can discover that every

  479
  syllable is given its due force, that every action has a purpose, and that the slovenly pronunciation and the fidgety movements with which we are too familiar upon our own stage should not find a place in a proper school of drama. I venture to say that these two results of this proposal would be of great benefit to the country generally, that we should not only get a high school of drama and of acting and a continuous performances of the best plays, but we should also fall into line with other countries who have these great national theatres and these great schools always available for those who attend them, in which the best dramas are performed with the best histrionic talent the country can produce. It has been said that our language will gain. I think it will. I think we are too apt nowadays to talk elliptically and slovenly. As in our handwriting we slur over our letters owing to the typewriter, the telegram and the halfpenny card, we are slipshod in our ordinary conversation, not only in pronunciation, but in dramatic use of the language. It would be a desirable thing to give the people an opportunity of going to plays where they will be interested, amused or excited, and their feelings stirred, and at the same time will hear their language spoken as it ought to be spoken and presented to the best advantage. These are the advantages. There are no doubt serious reasons to be satisfied before this great scheme can be brought into effect. Such a theatre requires, in the first instance, a site. It wants a building; it wants a scheme of government, and I take it that the body of trustees which the hon. Member for West Clare desires would not be the persons who would actually select the plays and assign the parts, but that there would be a practical small body who would carry out the purposes which I have ventured to indicate, I hope correctly, as the purposes which the promoters of this scheme have in view. When that is all done there will have to be provided a staff of actors, who would no doubt be animated by a sense of esprit de corps, as presenting the best work of the English stage, and with an ambition to present it in the best possible way. All this means money, and it cannot be started without some assistance from the Government. I ask the Government to look upon this matter with favour, and
  480
  to lend us some hope or expectation that some assistance will be given and some kindly feeling expressed towards the project. It does not compete with other theatres any more than the Théâtre français competes with the Odéon and the other theatres in Paris. It does propose to do a work which I believe to be a valuable work in the education—I hesitate to use the word—of our own people in the knowledge of their own drama, their own literature, and their own language, and I venture to commend it to the serious consideration of the Government.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The right hon. Gentleman made a cautionary suggestion that this case should not be put too high. In the course of his speech he indicated that the National Theatre was, if not necessary, at least advisable in order to save the drama, in order to save the stage, and in order to save the pronunciation of the English language. I am sure we are all gratified to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, because he showed a knowledge of musical comedy which I am sure must have been hitherto unsuspected on this side of the House. The Mover and Seconder of the Motion delivered very eloquent speeches on the subject. The Seconder has an experience not only unique in this House, but in the country generally, of special phases in the matter of dramatic representation. In regard to the hon. Member (Mr. Lynch), I do not think he made his position quite so clear. It must have been some advantage to the Mover of the Resolution, who required a National Theatre in order to preserve quotations in this House, to hear the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Lynch), and to know that the habit of quotations had not died in the absence of a National Theatre up to date. With one remark of the hon. Member I profoundly agree when, in a prophetic spirit, he referred to the dull and portentous speech which would fall from the Front Bench. I agree with him when he said that a great writer must be a great rebel, but do not let him think that a great rebel must be of necessity a great writer, because they are not quite convertible presentations of the same truth.
  We were gratified to hear the hon. Member's speech. It was something to excuse Shakespeare; it was more to condemn Tennyson, and it was a still greater achievement to explain Shaw, and the hon. Gentleman who has put this triple

  481
  Bill before us to-night achieved a success very rarely exampled in the annals of the House. I understand he is in favour of the spirit of the Resolution provided he chooses his own trustees—that is very intelligible—but I understand he is not in favour of the Resolution as it now stands. The hon. Gentleman opposite says he is an old-fashioned dramatist, who believes in Shakespeare and the classical writers, and is not in such familiar touch as the hon. Gentleman with the modern school of dramatic thought. I understand the hon. Member is really in favour of a National Theatre to some extent in order that he may avoid the Censor, because one of his points was that there would be introduced at the National Theatre plays now condemned under the censorship provisions which are now in operation. I understand his idea is that there are a great number of writers, mainly amongst his own acquaintances, who are ready at any moment to write masterpieces if it were not for this dull shadow of the censorship which really condemns all their operations, and when they do write they unfortunately write in such a way that the Censor cannot quite pass what they write. The Censor is a very useful institution after all to the hon. Member's friends, because he performs one or two functions. He is a permanent justification for their silence, or he is the occasional advertisement of their genius. I suppose the hon. Member thinks the National Theatre will wipe all these difficulties away.
  I have no right to speak in the literary tone of the Gentlemen who have hitherto addressed the House. I must speak from the lower level, but perhaps one which will be more easily understood. The real meaning of the Resolution is this, shall there or shall there not be a recognition of the theatre by the State as a matter of vital national concern? In other words, do the functions of government extend, as far as the theatre is concerned, to the extent of saying that it is the duty of the State to take part in recognising and endowing a National Theatre? I need not follow the progress of the movement to which the hon. Member has referred. It has been going on for over eight years, and the Shakespeare memorial and the National Theatre were amalgamated some years ago, and they are now working together. Now that there, is an appeal for subscriptions, and as there is a reference to money—I do not mean the play "Money,"
  482
  but the cash product—it is not irrelevant to remember what the figures are in this case. The appeal, for which the hon. Gentleman, amongst others, is responsible, is for £100,000 for a site, £150,000 for the building and equipment, and another £250,000 for endowment purposes, making £500,000 in all. These are very big figures, and although there has been at any rate one very beneficent contribution, all the subscriptions up to now amount to about £100,000. That is to say, a fifth of the capital required has been voluntarily subscribed. As I understand it, the position put by those who support the Resolution is that the State recognition and endowment of the drama is justified in the same sense as the State recognition and endowment of music, painting, and sculpture in the universities and in other institutions of a similar character. As I understand, they put their case a little higher than that, and in this I think they are right, because the drama is more intimately connected with the every-day life of the citizens of the country than either music or painting or sculpture could possibly be. It has been said that if you had this national theatre there would be a revival of the most characteristic English drama that cannot possibly be produced profitably now because the people do not want it. That is why the movement has such popular support in the country! As I understand it, the national theatre is to produce plays to which, if they were produced by private enterprise, no one would go.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Let me point out the difference. You would not get people to go to a long run, and many of the best things you cannot, as a commercial speculation, produce on short runs.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I think in the long run it comes to the same thing. I quite recognise the hon. Member's point. In order that private enterprise may succeed you must have a certain duration of a play, and, although it might last for a week, which would exhaust the people of culture for whom the hon. Member acts, still you cannot in private enterprise produce only for people of culture. That is the difficulty. I also wish to remind him that they must recognise one thing: they are in a minority. Under these circumstances, if the Government is asked to support a theatre which is to produce plays which, if produced by commercial enterprise, would not be successful, it requires a little caution—I put it no higher

  483
  than that—before we propose to spend public money upon this kind of work. It is quite true that a small country like Denmark has, I think, £20,000 a year for its national theatre; but, on the other hand, there is a precedent in New York, which has not been mentioned to-night. In 1909 a new theatre was built there under the auspices of some millionaires. They only gave money, I understand, and not advice; therefore all their influence was for good. The new theatre was opened and a play was produced there, and it went on for two seasons with a varied programme, and then, after enormous losses—enormous to the ordinary man, not to millionaires—the enterprise was abandoned and the theatre was given over to public spectacles. The reason was, of course, that the general public had not been educated and were not prepared for this cultured representation, which was given in the new theatre. The hon. Gentleman rather admits that the public of this country are not educated up to that any more than himself. It would, I think, be rather a serious risk to run to produce these plays for the general public. Money and equipment, and all that, are not enough, because you must have at the back of a movement of this kind an interested, educated, and enthusiastic public opinion.
  I do not minimise in the least what has been said in support of this Motion, but as I understand the argument of the hon. Gentleman this is a request for an assurance of immediate State assistance. I think it is necessary to state, by way of preface to what I intend to say, that I am speaking for myself, because the Government, as such, have nothing to do with these theatrical enterprises. It is perfectly well known that the Members of this Government are not so well acquainted with theatrical affairs as to be able to speak with authority on the subject raised in this Debate. Speaking for myself, I would say that there are cases in which the House can give guidance to the Government, and this is one of them, and the Government feel that the House, representative as it is, can give its guidance on a difficult matter of this kind concerned with the art of the drama, upon which there are so many specialists on both sides of the House at the present moment. The Government does ask the House for guidance so far as this Motion is concerned. I am rather inclined to
  484
  accept what was said by the Mover of the Motion, when he stated that the duty of the Government was not to initiate but to crown a project of this kind. The time for crowning has not come. The hon. Member admits that only £100,000 out of £500,000 has been subscribed voluntarily. I think the hon. Member, on consideration, would agree that until, at any rate, by far the greater part of the £500,000 has been subscribed voluntarily, the time for crowning has not arrived. That is the view which I take. When the project is matured, when the site about which negotiations has been going on is obtained, when the building is erected, when the theatre is equipped, and when it has a reasonable endowment, I think the time for crowning the movement will then very nearly have been reached. I think that then the time will have come for asking the Government to take into consideration the view it should take in regard to this Motion. But I must say this: If and when a contribution is made by the State to a project of this kind, the contribution when made should be in the form, not of a capital Grant but of an annual subsidy. I think that that is the form which would commend itself to all sections of the House. We look to the House for guidance, and I now ask the House to take whatever view it pleases, and let us know the result.
  Mr. SPENCER LEIGH HUGHES: We have heard a very interesting Debate to-night on the very wide topic of a National Theatre. I suppose that most Members of the House have received, as I have myself, a circular on this subject, headed "The Shakespeare Memorial National Theatre." I have noticed that every Gentleman who has taken part in this Debate to-night has assumed that these plays, "Hamlet," "Macbeth," and the rest of them, were written by Shakespeare. But, after all, that is a matter of dispute. I do not say that this is a party subject at all, but I believe I am right in saying that the majority of those who believe in the "Baconian theory," as it is called, are Tariff Reformers. I have no doubt that there are exceptions, but I believe that that is more or less true. Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrenee, a gentleman who may be described in one of Johnson's phrases as
  "surely the richest author that ever grazed the common of literature."
  holds strongly to the theory that Bacon wrote the plays, and he goes so far as to say that Shakespeare, the genius who has

  485
  been described in glowing terms on the other side of the House to-night, was a drunken, illiterate clown. I do not know exactly why Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence took that view, but I believe that he was in some way brought to adopt that view of the case by the fact that when Tariff Reform was put before the country bacon was omitted from the list of articles that were going to be subject to taxation. And so we have come to the time when a circular is put before us mentioning in a cold-blooded manner the name of Shakespeare as the poet who is to be celebrated while Bacon is going to be dropped out. I notice that this circular is signed by all kinds of very distinguished men, only one of whom I happen to know, and the list includes two bishops and the Lord Mayor of London. Then they say this:—
  "Few will deny that the amount required—"
  that is, half a million of money—
  "though large, is comparatively trifling when compared with the debt that we owe to our great national poet and dramatist."
  They do not say who he is. When I am going to vote half a million of money I want to know for whom it is voted. At any rate, whoever this great national dramatist and poet was he was a man who had a great deal of acquaintance, I think, with the methods of Parliament and the proceedings of this House. Take one or two phrases, which I noted down in the Library to-day, which are used in the works of this man, Shakespeare, Bacon, or whoever he was. This is one of his lines:
  "To lie in cold obstruction and to rot."
  I notice the hon. Baronet the junior Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) present. I am sure that he will agree with me that this bringing together of the words "obstruction" and "rot" is not without significance. Then there is another line which may be said to have something to do with the methods of all-night sittings or prolonged debate.
  "And there from hour to hour we rot and rot."
  Of course, you notice, I dare say, that this will encourage Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence in saying that either of those authors, whoever he may be, is in sympathy with himself. The other line is, "Most welcome protection." You cannot get him on one side—he was not a party man. He never, for instance, uses the word "Conservative." You will not find it in Shakespeare at all. Often the word "liberal" is used: "The people, liberal, valiant, and active." That suggests the present condition of affairs. Some hon.
  486
  Gentlemen opposite may see an allusion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this, "Most like a liberal villain." You find him sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other, but always with a knowledge of politics. Who was he? He seems to have been a man of sympathy with this House rather than the other. He uses a phrase utterly out of order in debate in this House, "Who lies in the Second Chamber." That is a suggestion of untruthful debate in another place which nobody in this House would think of making, and he would certainly be called to order if he did. I think, if this question had to be settled, I would accept the ruling of the Chair as to whether Shakespeare or Bacon did write those plays. Before we settle the question of a National Theatre, some understanding should be arrived at. If you give a ruling on that subject, Sir, we shall all be very much obliged. In the absence of that ruling, I am going to support, if there be any Division, this Motion before the House, and I am a Shakespearean so far as I am concerned. I notice my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. J. M. Robertson) in his place. He could settle this question in about five minutes. He has written a book, and I am certain a most impressive book, on this subject. I have not read it. I have promised to read it, and I am going to carry out that promise within a reasonable date, but I am sure that, if he would rise in his place and assure us who wrote those plays, and to whose memory we are to erect this theatre, and possibly vote half a million, at some time or other the House would very willingly consent to do so.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Before the House proceeds to decide whether or not it is going to accept the Motion of my hon. Friend, may I take advantage of the invitation given by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department that on one, and only one occasion, the House should give advice to the Government. There has been a good deal of discussion this evening, and some very interesting speeches have been made. They have turned upon whether or not the plays of Shakespeare were written by Bacon or somebody else, and upon whether or not it would be advisable to subsidise a theatre which none except very highly educated people would attend. I would like to bring back the Debate to what may be considered a more common place point of

  487
  view, and that is whether we are at the present moment in a position to devote a very considerable sum of money to this particular object. I must say I thought there was a great deal of sound commonsense in the speech of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, because his statement, which I have not heard contradicted even by the hon. Member who has just spoken, or by my hon. Friend on this side; was that unless the movers of this Motion were of opinion that was the ordinary commercial way. They would not get anyone to attend the theatre, they would not come and ask for a subsidy from the Government. In my opinion that is absolutely correct. It is evident that the production of the plays of Shakespeare, however great those plays may be, does not attract the ordinary people who go to the theatre to-day. I would appeal to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks), who has a considerable fund of humour, and who is also in many ways sentimental, and would ask, would he go to listen to a play, written by a great Englishman, whether Bacon or Shakespeare? I very much doubt, if he did go to a theatre, whether he would go to this National Theatre, and listen to a play of Shakespeare. I do not know whether I am doing him any injustice.
  Mr. CROOKS: I love Shakespeare.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I said the hon. Gentleman was sentimental and that may account for his desire to go and see this particular play.
  Mr. CROOKS: "Much Ado About Nothing" is my favourite.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know whether he thinks the Debate this evening is "much ado about nothing," but I do not think that that is quite correct, because apparently the Debate this evening might result in a very considerable burden being put on the taxpayers of the country, unless the hon. Gentleman desires to put it solely on the payers of Super-tax, in which case I should not agree with him. I do hope that the House will approach this question in a serious manner. I am rather afraid that we have been led away by a variety of feelings this evening, and we may possibly have come to consider this proposal as being a proposal which is not seriously made and will not be seriously entertained. I am not quite sure that is right, because, sup-
  488
  posing this House resolves that "In the opinion of this House there should be established in London a National Theatre to be vested in trustees and assisted by the State." That is a very vague Resolution, and it might, if we agreed to it, give rise to the idea that the House of Commons had committed itself to the opinion that there should be a National Theatre assisted by the State. There is nothing in this about crowning the edifice as the Under-Secretary stated. I am endeavouring now to show reasons why the Government, which is apparently led by the Under-Secretary at present, should vote against this Motion. He asked the House to give him guidance. I am glad he has taken up that attitude, and I am proposing to give him guidance, and I mention that the Motion is very vague and that if it is carried the House might be committed to the idea that a National Theatre should be vested in trustees for the purpose of producing the plays of Shakespeare and other dramas of recognised merit. Who is to be the judge of what are "other dramas of recognised merit"? Is it to be the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Lynch), or the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hughes), or the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks), or the Under-Secretary for State? We are opening up a very difficult problem. What it really comes to is that there is to be a National Theatre which the State is to assist. I am very fond of the theatre when the Government give me the opportunity to attend it, which is not often; but I think we shall reach the limit of extravagance and foolishness if, with an expenditure of £195,000,000 a year, instead of thinking how we can retrench, we spend more money in this direction. For nearly 2,000 years—and very much longer before that—but in ordinary parlance, this country has been in existence for nearly 2,000 years without a National Theatre. Would it not be advisable to go on for a little longer in the state in which we have been for so many years? The right hon. Baronet below me (Sir W. Anson), from whom I am sorry to differ, is of opinion that a National Theatre would be a good thing. There are many good things I should like to see. I should like to see a dinner hour in this House, but I am not likely to get it. I do not doubt that a National Theatre might be a good thing, but I cannot agree that we ought now suddenly to resolve to spend a considerable sum of money

  489
  upon it. Will the Under-Secretary put up the Home Secretary to say that after listening to what I have said the Government have come to the conclusion to go into the "No" Lobby? There seems to be a little hesitation in answering that appeal. I do not know whether that is because the Government have made up their minds that they are going to support the Resolution or because they have not the courage to oppose it. I think we ought to know the Home Secretary's opinion now that he has had the advantage of listening to the various speeches which have been delivered. I hope we are not going to allow this Motion to pass without expressing some opinion upon it. If we do we shall probably be committing ourselves to a very considerable expenditure, because I greatly doubt whether we shall get out of it if it is once passed. I have seen a great number of Motions proposed on Wednesdays received in a jocular spirit, with the idea that nothing serious would result from them. But it has been afterwards said that because the House of Commons had considered and passed a particular Motion, it must be considered seriously, and must be taken to mean something. In some cases that has not been so. Seeing we have practically only one Chamber, I do not think we ought to allow the Resolution to be accepted unless everyone is of the opinion that it is a Resolution that ought to be carried out. Under these circumstances I hope we shall hear something from the Home Secretary.
  Mr. PONSONBY: I want to say a very few words in favour of this Motion. I was unfortunately called out of the House and did not hear the speech of the Under-Secretary, but I understand the Government are giving the Motion their favourable consideration.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No.
  Mr. PONSONBY: It amount to that. I hope we shall be able to pass this Motion to-night, because it is really a matter in which I think the State ought to take an interest. It seems rather a contradiction that last Wednesday we were asking the State to withhold its interference—
  Mr. BOOTH: Hear, hear.
  Mr. PONSONBY: And that this Wednesday we should be asking the State to support the drama. I really do not think there is any contradiction in that attitude. On the
  490
  contrary we want to free the drama from the shackles of the censorship, and we want the support of the State to help what now is admittedly a great educational force in the country. Education, as I understand it, is chiefly valuable for teaching people how to employ their leisure. An enormous number of people now go to the theatre. Amongst the great countries of Europe we are one of the few that withhold all State support from the drama. I have had experience of the State-endowed theatre in France, Germany, and in Denmark, and in all these cases I must say it has a most beneficial effect. I sympathise with the hon. Member who spoke from the Nationalist Benches when he expressed the fear that the State Theatre might be utilised for merely archcological purposes—for unearthing the old classics, and not encouraging modern plays. I should be the last to support any scheme that was directed to that end. I think it of the utmost importance that the modern drama should be supported, and it is only by a State-endowed Theatre that you can adequately support it. We have lately seen in London attempts made to support the best modern dramatists. Those attempts have generally failed. A repertory theatre was started not long ago. The result of that repertory theatre was that there was a conflict between art and commerce. Unless the thing paid it could not be put on a long enough time for the public really to enjoy it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps the public did not want it.
  Mr. PONSONBY: It does not always follow, because the public do not go to a play for a few weeks, that in the long run they will not come round and appreciate that particular play. If there is sufficient money to give the play a long enough trial the public will come round and appreciate it. We have seen a very good instance in the attempt at a repertory theatre by Mr. Granville Barker. We know he has produced plays which in the ordinary commercial run would never have seen the light, and has educated the public, but I should say he often found considerable difficulty in making both ends meet, because he always has to find plays that may be beyond the modern taste, or plays that in some way or other do not draw large audiences. The result is that efforts of that sort are constantly failing, and I feel sure that without State support you

  491
  cannot encourage modern dramatists, and therefore you cannot educate the public taste properly. The day is passed, I think, when the arts are merely looked upon as trivial and frivolous adjuncts of our ordinary life. The arts have come to be part and parcel of our lives, and nobody's education is complete without the arts. It is time in this country that we should have a Minister of Fine Arts who should be responsible for pictorial art, for music, and for the drama. How do we treat music in this country compared, for instance, with Germany? We only give endowment to two institutions—the Royal College of Music and the Royal Academy; to no other hall or establishment do we give any State aid at all. To the Pictorial Arts it is true we give more attention, but I do not see why all these three sister arts should not be encouraged and supported by the State in order that the leisure of the people—and we want to see they have more leisure—should be looked after so that they can get a high class of entertainment which in itself is an education, and that we should not allow the public taste to be turned into channels into which it is turned now, such as musical comedy and the so-called revue.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the hon. Member where the money for all this is to come from?
  Mr. PONSONBY: The money for the endowment of arts in a country as rich as this could easily be produced.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Where from?
  Mr. PONSONBY: From the Treasury. I will not go into the figures with the hon, Baronet at the present moment, but there are other forms of expenditure I should be very willing to cut down, and there would be plenty to spare. It is perfectly ridiculous to say that a country spending £195,000,000 on various subjects cannot spare £200,000 to endow what I consider to be one of the most important branches of our public life, namely, the encouragement of our arts. I warmly support the Motion, and I sincerely trust when the scheme is brought forward it will not fall into the hands of any actor-manager or any special clique or section. We want to keep it national, as the French have kept it, quite apart from any particular school, and if it has the effect of doing away with star actors so much the better. The star actor is a thing of the past. Plays were
  492
  written for the star actor, and plays have to be very bad to give the star actor a chance. When the whole play is well played and the whole of the caste are doing their utmost you get a high level and you encourage all that is best and most valuable. I feel very strongly that the modern drama as well as the old should be encouraged. The hon. Member who moved this Resolution made those points quite clearly, and I shall support his Motion most cordially.
  Mr. MACKINDERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put the Question.
  Mr. BOOTH: Really we have had presented to-night one of the most ludicrous spectacles which it has ever been my lot to witness since I have been a Member of this House. An hon. Member for a Glasgow constituency has brought in a Motion in favour of the establishment of a National Theatre. One would think that the thoughts and ideas of the hon. Member would carry him to the neighbouring city of Edinburgh. It is not, however, a National Theatre in Edinburgh the hon. Member desires, but one in London. The hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Ponsonby) has got no idea where the money is coming from, and he appears to think that the hon. Baronet who represents the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is the only hon. Member who is concerned about the Treasury, but I hope to convince him that there is another. The hon. Member does ont attempt, as the representative of a Scottish constituency, to justify his advocacy of State assistance to a theatre in London and not one in Edinburgh. We ought to understand what is meant by a National Theatre. Some hon. Members are strong advocates of Scottish Home Rule, and the hon. Member for Clare. I am not aware whether he was supporting or opposing this Motion—did not throw the light which one would naturally expect from an Irish Member, as to whether the Irish Parliament would be content to join in a State subsidy for a theatre in London after they had got Home Rule. I presume that under Scottish Home Rule they would require a National Theatre in Edinburgh, and under Irish Home Rule they would require a National Theatre in Dublin, but we have no idea whether the money is to come from English funds or not. That is a matter with

  493
  which the speakers who have taken part in the Debate appear to have had no conconcern whatever. We are entitled to know whether or not it is intended that this should be an English contribution only. It seems to me that the National Theatre conjures up the important question of the different views which different nationalities may take of the drama. The national plays and the right kind of dramatist to encourage would be entirely different in the various parts of the Kingdom. The Scottish people would be likely to work the theatre with the smallest amount of money, and with actors on the most, economical scale. Here is a Motion which means a raid upon the Treasury as if it was a bottomless well into which faddists of all descriptions could come and dip their hands freely. While one does not object to the personal reminiscences of theatre-goers, I think we are entitled as a business assembly to pay some attention to the business aspect of this Resolution. This theatre, which is to be established in London is to be vested in trustees. You are certain to get stereotyped administration. You will certainly get old fossils put in as trustees. No one in his sensed would ever expect that trustees of a State-subsidised National Theatre would encourage individuality and artistic merit in beginners. The hint in the Resolution is that they are to confine their attention to Shakespeare. Why? Because they are not trusted, and you therefore give them a lead. So long as they keep to Shakespeare no one will suspect them. We all remember the warning given to the young minister, "Directly you get to your work, you will find vigorous opposition from three quarters—the devil, the publican, and the trustees." I think that with a Budget of the kind that now confronts us, and with increasing expenditure upon what Members of this House are pleased to call social reform, we should pause before we pass a Resolution of this kind. Whom do you wish to attract to this National Theatre? Is it the poor? I have heard no suggestion that the money is to be used to bring the priceless gems of literature within the reach of the poor. As far as I can make out, the idea is
  rather to pamper the intellectuals who can well afford to pay for their own theatre. The expenses of the theatre largely arise from the scenery that is used. What has been characteristic of recent productions of Shakespeare? Simply gorgeous scenery and expansive panoramas passing before the eye. The hon. Member says he wants to change that, but he will not change it by a State-subsidised theatre. That would encourage it: He would change it by cheap production, cheap because there is an absence of expensive machinery. The Chinese can give us a lesson in this. I do not know whether hon. Members have been to the National Theatre in China. I have been privileged to attend a dramatic representation in China by one who is called the Henry Irving of China—
  Mr. MACKINDERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. BOOTH: That actor had not any elaborate scenery. In fact, children were playing and people were drinking cups of tea within a few feet of where the actors played. If there is anything in the dramatic force and the intense power of an actor with a message, he is able to give that message without the adventitious aid of expensive scenery. If the object is to get back to good literature and to our great dramatists, it is not to be done by expensive machinery and employing an army of scene shifters. It is suggested that only the plays of Shakespeare and melodramas of recognised merit should be performed in this National Theatre, and I want to ask: What are the dramas of recognised merit?
  Mr. MACKINDERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes 32.

  Division No. 72.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Acland Francis, Dyke

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Cave, George

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Brace, William

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Baird, J. L.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Cotton, William Francis

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Crooks, William

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Kelly, Edward

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  King, Joseph

  Robinson, Sidney

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Royds, Edmund

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Fell, Arthur

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lynch, A. A.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Sutton, John E.

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Gulland, John William

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hancock, J. G.

  Morrell, Philip

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Munro, R.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  O'Dowd, John

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Hills, John Waller

  O'Shee, James John

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Hudson, Walter

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mackinder and Mr. Neilson.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Adamson, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Hodge, John

  Taylor Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Clough, William

  McGhee, Richard

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Middlebrook, William

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Gill, A. H.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Booth and Mr. Dundas White.

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Sandys, G. J.

  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 27.
  Original Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  It being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
  The remaining Orders of the day were read, and postponed.

  WAR IN BALKANS.

    SCUTARI.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I wish to ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he can add anything to the news which has been received in regard to events in the Montenegrin field of war; secondly, whether he can assure the House that any
    496
    step has been agreed upon by the Powers to be taken in the event of Scutari falling in opposition to the wishes of the Powers; and thirdly, whether he can assure us that the House will be consulted before His Majesty's Government concurs in any further steps towards the coercion of Montenegro. Everyone must realise the delicacy of the situation which has arisen out of the fall of Scutari, and every Member of the House must desire in particular to avoid saying a single word which could be offensive to any Power, but everyone will recognise that an entirely new situation has arisen. Up to this moment no complaint whatever has been made in this House in regard to the naval demonstration, and that, I think, for three reasons. Chiefly because it has been universally recognised that the prime interest held in view has been the maintenance of the harmony of the Concert, secondly that the demonstration differed materially from an act of coercion. It was only an indication of the unity of the Powers in their desire, and not an indication that they had decided upon active measures. Thirdly, everyone must have been conscious of the immense

    497
    debt owing to the Foreign Secretary for his unremitting labours in maintaining the harmony of the Concert, and, particularly in the mind of many Members, a sense of gratification that he has taken the opportunity of working in particular cordiality with the Germanic Powers. But now a very new situation arises out of the unexpected fall of the Fortress, and very strong feeling will inevitably be raised in the country if the action of the Concert takes positive form. Possibly such a feeling might arise as was expressed by Mr. Gladstone in days not so long ago when feeling over the Balkan States took the form of an anti-Austrian feeling. In my view it would be extremely regrettable if such an outburst of sentiment occurred. We must all hope that it will be avoided. It will certainly be now, in view of the new situation, the undiminished desire that the harmony of the concert should be maintained. I think there will be a feeling also that that harmony will be endangered by further positive action. Needless to say there would be a very strong sentiment in the country in opposition to the landing of any British force, but I think also that the concurrence of the Government in granting, let us say, a mandate to Austria to occupy Montenegrin territory with a view to relinquishing Scutari.
    Realising the extreme undesirability of saying a word which might possibly be construed as offensive even from the lips of a private Member, I should like to recall the argument that has been used for
    498
    giving support to the action of the Concert. It is that Austria has been peculiarly loyal under great difficulties during the last six months. There has been a general desire that the wishes of Austria I should be met. She has had to abandon ambitions which she has seriously held in the last quarter of a century, and desires have been attributed to her by the public opinion of Europe—desires which contradicted the national ambitions of the Balkan States—and naturally now, the Powers having committed themselves so far in concert with Austria, there is a feeling, to use the ordinary phrase, that the face of Austria must be saved. But against that I throw out two or three considerations. Firstly, there is the ordinary tradition of diplomacy, that the fait accompli should be recognised, and there will be a general desire that it should be accepted. It might almost be called a cardinal rule that the fait accompli should settle outstanding questions, and that it should not be upset. We have had an illustration of that in recent times. In October the Powers, in the most solemn and portentious way, declared that not one yard of territory would the Balkan States achieve by any amount of victory over Turkey. I think that, in the early days of November, immediately after the battle of Lule Burgas—
    Notice taken that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members not being present,
    The House was adjourned at Nineteen infinites after Eleven o'clock till to-morrow (Thursday).

  Road Board (Ireland).
  Road Board (Ireland).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  ORDERS UNDER SECTION 78.
  ORDERS UNDER SECTION 78.
  SALE OF MEDICINES.
  SALE OF MEDICINES.
  Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
  Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
  Super-Tax.
  Super-Tax.
  Galway Assizes.
  Galway Assizes.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Three-Edged Sword.
  Three-Edged Sword.
  Adjutants in York District.
  Adjutants in York District.
  Public Elementary Schools (Annual Grant).
  Public Elementary Schools (Annual Grant).
  Soudan.
  Soudan.
  Poor Law Children (Emigration to Canada).
  Poor Law Children (Emigration to Canada).
  Director of Public Instruction (Bengal).
  Director of Public Instruction (Bengal).
  Englishmen in Guernsey.
  Englishmen in Guernsey.
  Compensation (Infants).
  Compensation (Infants).
  Sheep Scab.
  Sheep Scab.
  Irish Cattle (Lairage at Ports).
  Irish Cattle (Lairage at Ports).
  Rhenish-Westphalia (Miners' Wages).
  Rhenish-Westphalia (Miners' Wages).
  Special Wire (Dundee).
  Special Wire (Dundee).
  Telephone Trunk Calls.
  Telephone Trunk Calls.
  London Postal Service (Promotion).
  London Postal Service (Promotion).
  Telegraph Revenue.
  Telegraph Revenue.
  Public Trustee (Scottish Trusts).
  Public Trustee (Scottish Trusts).
  Wills (Custody).
  Wills (Custody).

MARQUESS OF SLIGO.
Petition of George Ulick, Marquess of Sligo, Earl of Altamont, Viscount Westport of Westport, in the county of Mayo, and Baron Monteagle, in the Peerage of Ireland, and Baron Monteagle of Westport, in the county of Mayo, in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, claiming a right to vote at the election of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:

Manchester Ship Canal (Petition for Bill).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

ROCHFORD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.

CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
FORGERY BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons that they have appointed a Committee to consist of Five Members to join with the Select Committee appointed by this House as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of the 15th instant to consider the said Bill: Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A. on Monday next, at Twelve o'clock.

CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
  DUNDEE CORPORATION (IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAMWAYS) BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Special Order, dated 15th April 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Pack Shepherds) Provisional Order, 1913;
2. Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners and the National Health Insurance Joint Committee acting jointly, as to the payment and collection of Contributions payable by an Employer under Section 4 (4) of the Act, in respect of persons other than Exempted Irish Migratory Labourers:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 29.)

READING CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L]
ROCHFORD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
LLANTRISANT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Ravensworth be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Northbourne; read, and agreed to.

HARBOUR, &c., BILLS.
Report of the Board of Trade on the Limerick Harbour Commissioners Bill [H.L.]: Ordered to be laid before the House (The Lord Granard (E. Granard)).

CONGESTION IN THE HEBRIDES.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN rose to call attention to the Final Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland for the year to March 31,1912, and to the present condition of the Outer Hebrides; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, before I address myself to the terms of my Motion I regret that I am obliged to make a formal complaint as to the manner in which official information with regard to the Highlands and Western Islands and the crofter counties of Scotland has been withheld or delayed during the last year or two by the Scottish Office. Our only means of obtaining any official information with regard to what goes on in the crofter

257
counties, which is a subject of considerable interest at the present time, are the Reports of the Congested Districts Board and of the Crofters Commission. Those Reports always used to be circulated about three months or so after they were received and we used to have them in the month of June, but during the last two years, when they certainly have not been more favourable to the policy which has been pursued, we have had difficulty in obtaining them. I asked for them myself in the year 1911, and after sonic difficulty got them in August of that year, when it was impossible for any one to bring them to the notice of the House owing to important business of other kinds. Last year I asked for them more than once, and in October Lord Herschell was instructed to tell me that they were in process of signature and would be delivered immediately. The Final Report of the Congested Districts Board we have received, but up to the present time the Report of the Crofters Commission has not been issued. Do not le,; it be said to me that this Final Report of the Crofters Commission is going to be given to us at a later period in connection with the new Board of Agriculture or the Land Court. The Crofters Commission was an independent body just as much as the Congested Districts Board was. They both came to a termination at the same time, and therefore it was quite clear that the Crofters Commission ought to issue a Final Report just as much as the Congested Districts Board.
Let me turn to my Motion. The policy of the Government has been of late years in the Western Islands and Highlands to sub-divide farms, to persuade owners as far as possible to acquiesce and co-operate in this sub-division, and to acquire land to be re-let and sold to small holders as they are now called but who used to be called crofters. The consequence and the object of this has been, of course, to increase the population. I venture to think that that policy has been followed out without much reference to the capability of the soil to support an increased population, for with the exception of fishing, which is a somewhat precarious occupation, there is no other industry in the islands. The congestion has, of course, become worse as the population has increased, and simultaneously with the increase in the population there also has been necessarily a large increase in
258
the rates. I venture to say that this policy has proved to be a mistake, and by way of showing to your Lordships that, that is so I shall content myself by quoting from the Report of the Congested Districts Board as to how this policy has worked out ill operation.
The Board say that on the completion of over fourteen years service they think it may be useful briefly to summarise what they have been able to do in the various branches of their work. I entirely agree with them, and it is to that summary that I am now going to call your Lordships' attention. By far the largest case is that of the Lews. In the Lews there is a population of somewhere about 28,000, of whom no fewer than 7,000 are cottars—that is to say, men who are not rated, and who, while they increase the burden of the rates do not in any way contribute to the revenue. What have the Board to say with regard to the Lews. They say—
"The condition of Lewis has for a length of time engaged the serious attention of the Board, and we have expended considerable sums on roads, piers, and the like, as well as on other useful objects in that Island. …
"The Report of the Crofters Commission upon the condition of Lewis [Cd. 13271, shows the difficulties of a satisfactory and complete settlement of the acute and widespread congestion in the Island by any schemes of land settlement within Lewis itself. The area of land in Lewis held under crofter tenure greatly exceeds that held otherwise, so that even if it were possible to assign the whole of the farms or deer forest lands in. Lewis for relief of congestion, it would not provide a remedy of a permanent nature; besides, a great portion of the lands presently under deer is unsuitable for crofter occupation. It ought to be added that the congestion in Lewis is on the increase from the frequent erection of dwellings by cottars and squatters, both on the common pasture and on individual holdings.
"We expressed our readiness to endeavour effectually to deal with any application made to us for the voluntary migration from the island of collars and others unable to find a decent livelihood in their present condition, as, in our opinion, some such migration on a considerable scale was necessary it material relief were to be secured.
"We asked the Landward Committee of the Parish Council of Stornoway whether in the event of our acquiring lands on the mainland of Scotland suitable for occupation by crofters or fishermen, the Committee would undertake to supply a list of, say, 50 families in Lewis—crofters or cottars or squatters—fairly well skilled and otherwise suitable, who would come under a binding promise and agreement to transfer themselves permanently, with reasonable aid from us, to such a new settlement or settle-ments.
"The reply we received showed that the members of Committee had made due inquiry in their respective districts, but that none of the

259
cottars, squatters, or crofters was found to be in favour of migration to the mainland or other parts of Scotland."
The Board leave that question there. But on looking back I observe that exactly the same paragraph formed part of the Report of the Board in the year 1906.
What I want to know is, What have the Government been about and what have the Board been about between the year 1906 and the year 1913? The Board might, merely by taking a pair of scissors, have snipped out the paragraph from the Report of 1906 and inserted it in this place. The only thing that I can see that the Board pretend to have done is this. They say—
"As regards land settlement, Major Matheson has, with our help, subdivided his farms of Aignish and of Mangursta into 45 crofts, while 29 fishermen's dwellings have been erected on feus at the Battery Park in Stornoway Harbour."
Your Lordships will find in Appendix V of this Report what has happened in these three places. The farm of Aignish was divided in 1906. I have it on the authority of Major Matheson himself that he felt considerable hesitation as to the wisdom of doing this, but that he was persuaded by the Board and agreed to allow them to sub-divide this farm on the understanding that his rent of £96 was to stand. Let us see what has happened since 1906, in the first place with regard to the Government. The Government lent £3,625 on building loans to the crofters; of that sum they have been repaid £86. The annuity which was yearly repayable was £142, and for the year to March 31, 1912, £24 was paid. In six years on this sub-divided farm the result is to the Government £534 of arrears. Then what has happened to Major Matheson, the owner of the estate? His rent on January 1, 1913, was £96; the arrears due to him were £172. But that is not all so far as he is concerned, because he has just received a notice from the Land Court that it is proposed, in violation of their agreement with him, to reduce his rent from £96 to £60. That is the case of Aignish. I now come to Battery Park, which was started in the same year—namely, 1906. There the Government lent for buildings £3,173, of which £317 has been repaid. The annuity is £113, and last year there was paid £71, the total arrears being £307.
LORD EMMOTT: From which page is the noble Earl quoting?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The case of Aignish is on page 11 of the Appendix, and Battery Park is on page 10. Then what about Major Matheson, who has feu duty paid to him or ought to have it? His feu duty is £27 16 s. 0d., and the arrears up to January 1 of this year were £92. With regard to the other case, that of Mangursta, the crofters have only had one half year's rent due from them because the Board paid the rent up to that time. Therefore there bas not been any opportunity for arrears, but Major Matheson told me that upon that settlement, which had failed on a previous occasion, he looked with very great doubt as to its success. Major Matheson is, in my humble opinion, and I believe in the opinion of all those who have looked into the case, a man who has met with very unfortunate treatment. He, like many other proprietors, endeavoured to co-operate with the Board as far as he possibly could, but lately, owing to the disastrous result of what has been done in this direction, he has been obliged to leave the Island of Lewis, to which be is passionately attached, because he is almost unable to pay the rates. That is his position.
From the year 1905 to the year 1910 or 1911 Major Matheson entered into a correspondence with the former Secretary for Scotland, Lord Pentland. The noble Lord avoided him as much as possible; he never went to see him when he visited the Lews and never spoke to him, or, indeed, to anybody who was likely to be able to inform him of the real state of things in the Lews. When the present Secretary for Scotland acceded to office, Major Matheson went and saw him, and the tight hon. gentleman naturally said that he had only just come into office and did not know anything about the case. Thereupon Major Matheson wrote to him a letter, on July 29 last, stating all the facts with regard to the rates, and so on, and giving him other information in detail. He received an official intimation of the receipt of that letter, but heard nothing more. He wrote again in September pointing out that be had received no answer, and to that letter he did not even get the official letter acknowledging its receipt. So in January he went to see Mr. McKinnon Wood, who told him very civilly that he had his sympathy and that he felt very much for him, but that he was unable to do anything or to

261
interfere in the matter at all. That is the position of the unfortunate Major -Matheson. lie sees, of course, quite clearly now that to endeavour to co-operate with the Board is not in any way to obtain any assistance or co-operation from them, and that, on the contrary, all these changes he has made, including these recent changes which have been mentioned by the Board as if they were really great improvements which had been made by them—that all these changes have worked out very much to his disadvantage. So much for the Lews.
I am only taking two or three of the large eases. If your Lordships will read this Report you will see that there are plenty more of the same sort. Moreover, if I could get a Committee to inquire into the working of the Board in these Islands and the real result, I believe that a good deal more would come out than appears in this Report. The. Board say—
"In South Uist Lady Cathcart has subdivided in a similar manner, with our aid, lands at Kilbride, Peninerine, Gerinish, Kilaulay, and Locheynort, which are now in the occupation of 81 crofters."
Lady Cathcart, too, endeavoured to cooperate with the Board as long as she possibly could, until by bitter experience, having tried every means of assisting these people and having spent and wasted a great deal of money, she satisfied herself finally that this experiment was absolutely impossible, and therefore she has declined to take any further part in it. The four places first mentioned in the quotation from the Report which I have just read were started in 1907, and Lady Cathcart undertook to collect for the Board their annuities because in those places they made some building loans, and so on. I will merely mention to your Lordships how much in arrear they are with regard to their annuities to the Board. Kilbride has total arrears of £47; Peninerine, has arrears of £31; Gerinish has arrears of £33; and with regard to Kilaulay, where the annuity is £8 10 s. 0d., they paid nothing at all last year, and their arrears are £21.
Many owners assisted and did all they could to co-operate with the Board in times past, but many of those who have made these settlements and cut up farms are in very serious doubt with regard to their success in the future. The longer the settlements last the less favourable
262
do the prospects become. With regard to the question of local rates, on that the whole of the Western Islands and Highlands are unanimous. In fact, I do not think it is necessary to detain your Lordships at any length on that subject, because it will be generally admitted. The Scottish Office is full of reports and complaints with regard to the rates, and the reason, of course, is this. In proportion as you increase the population, when you are not increasing but rather diminishing the rateable value, the result is that the pressure of the local rates must necessarily become greater, because a great many of these people are cottars. They are not even rated; they contribute to charges on the rates but to the rates themselves they contribute nothing whatever, and the longer this policy goes on and the more it is extended your Lordships will see that the burden must necessarily become heavier.
By way of illustration let me state what occurred with regard to the Island of Vatersay. There is really something almost humorous in it. When this scheme was started only a little more than half of the crofts were filled up, but on three Islands which were near by—Mingulay, Berneray, and Pabbay—there were about thirty crofts. Their rent was £90; they owed Lady Cathcart £900 in arrears. It suddenly occurred to them to sail away from the Islands, leaving their arrears and their property, and transplant themselves to Vatersay, where they now are; but with regard to the amount of stock they had, your Lordships can easily imagine what that was. Let me show you what the effect of that was on the rates of the parish of Barra. I may say, first, that the rateable value of the parish of Barra is about £2,000. There was a school on the Island of Mingulay which had cost £700; that is derelict. There was a Roman Catholic church and priest's house, which had cost the Roman Catholics £600; that is derelict. But on Vatersay they have just erected a school at a cost of £1,200. That shows your Lordships how, with this change of population, the Education Act is working in that particular parish. I may mention further with regard to the Lows that Major Matheson has pointed out to the Scottish Office in his correspondence with them that whereas the assessable value in a mainland parish to the population is £6 18 s. 0d. per head, in the Lews it is 8s. 11 d. I think I have

263
now said enough with regard to these oases where the proprietors have cooperated with the Board.
Now let us take the cases where the Board have purchased land for resale or letting. On page 8 of the Report the Board say—
"We purchased in 1899, from the Duke of Sutherland, the northern portion of the farm of Syre in Strathnaver, Sutherlandshire, containing about 12,116 acres, for £10,546 10 s.. … In 1900 the Board bought about 3,000 acres of farm land in Barra from Lady Gordon Cathcart for £7,500."
In both cases the land was resold. The Board go on to say—
"In the case of both Syre and Barra the Board received during the present year a written request in which the settlers expressed their unanimous desire to become tenants of the Board under the Crofters Acts instead of purchasing tenants. The Board after carefully reviewing all the circumstances in each case decided to grant the request of the settlers, and an agreement was entered into giving effect to the change."
It is quite evident that the people of Syre and Barra found that it was not convenient to pay their annuities, so they decided that they would recede from their purchase and become tenants, with, of course, the prospect hereafter of their possibly behaving with regard to the rent in the same way as they had behaved with regard to the annuities. If you look on page 12, about which I shall have to say a word in a moment, you will find that that was the case.
If your Lordships will look at the bottom of page 8 you will see that the sums expended between April 1; 1908, and March 1, 1912, in connection with these land schemes —there are others besides the particular eases I have mentioned—are: For purchase of land, £129,000; for loans to settlers for buildings, £21,000; and for various outlays, £230,000. The greater portion of this £230,000, apart from what may have been received for the sheep stock, was given to the settlers in order to start this system. It has been furnished by the taxpayers of Great Britain in order to start this system in the Western Islands. Now I go to page 12, with regard to the question of the repayment of loans and the payment of rent. This is the Board's report of what has happened—
"We regret to say that in the case of the several estates, the settlers, with some exceptions, are considerably in arrear. We recognise that there are cases of temporary misfortune, in which tome consideration may reasonably be shown,
264
but it is necessary that the position in regard to payment generally should be improved; and by the exercise of pressure at collections, by the issue of warnings, and by taking legal proceedings in selected cases, we have endeavoured to enforce a better observance of obligations. We believe that these measures are likely to have a salutary effect."
I should very much like to know what is their reason for believing that these measures are likely to have a salutary effect, because this paragraph, with scarcely the alteration of a word, has been repeated every year since the year 1907. It is almost verbatim the same in every single Report issued since then, whereas the arrears have gone on considerably increasing.
This is the abstract. The arrears in Syre, Barra, Glendale, and Kilmuir were—In 1909, £3,940; in 1910, £4,712; in 1911, £5,597; and in 1912, £5,507. Your Lordships would naturally suppose from the last-named amount that they had paid off some of the money, but that is not so. What happened was that the Board, in despair, struck off £800 as being irrecoverable. In Syre the total arrears are £871, or 1,1, years; in Barra £650, or over two years; in Glendale, £844, or a year and a-quarter; and in Kilmuir £3,142, or one year. Then comes poor little Vatersay. Vatersay only started two years ago, and therefore its arrears at present are more moderate. When it was a farm the rent was £350. The late Secretary for Scotland reduced that to £180. In the first year there were about £20 arrears, and in the second year £40. With regard to the way in which Vatersay is stocked I cannot help saying a word to your Lordships, and this information is to be found in the last Report of the Crofters Commission, not the Report for the last year because we have not got that, but I go back to the Report of the year before, which is the last we have. This is what happened. The people, who were supposed to be suitable tenants for Vatersay, at once appealed to the Board stating that they had not got any stock, and asked the Board to allow them to take in stock from the mainland. That is contrary to the whole spirit, and I believe to the wording, of the Act, but the Board said that as a temporary measure they would allow it. I strongly suspect that that temporary measure is still in existence, for I do not know from what other source any stock was to be derived.

265
I have already given the expenditure of the Board in connection with their land schemes. The total is £380,000. I submit to your Lordships that this Report simply condemns the proceedings of the Board during the last fourteen years. And by whom is this Report signed? It is signed by the Secretary for Scotland. That is more or less an official signature, a form, although the Secretary for Scotland was a member of the Board. But it is also signed by Neil, now Lord, Kennedy, who is Chairman of the present Land Court and is occupied at the present time in administering the recent law. How any one who signed these Reports can gravely continue to advocate this experiment, and still more to carry it out, is more than I can understand. This experiment has been tried, and I submit to your Lordships that it has failed. There has been a great expenditure of the British taxpayers' money, and what has been the result? You have succeeded in erecting an edifice which is so top-heavy that it begins to tumble down almost as soon as you have begun to put it up. That is the state of things as far as I can see with regard to the Western Islands at the present time. If this policy is persevered in, if with your eyes open, if in spite of all the facts which stare you in the face you persist in this policy, then I am afraid you are doing your best to create, and you will succeed in a very short time in creating, a state of things in the Western Islands only equalled by the state of things which prevailed in Ireland at the time of the potato famine.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, owing to the very late dates at which these Reports came before us there has been no discussion upon them, I think, since the year 1910, in this House. At that time we put forward a considerable number of criticisms, not only as to the scheme and the work which the Board were carrying out, but also with regard to the methods in which the accounts were presented to us. I am glad to see that the Secretary for Scotland paid some attention to that criticism, and the accounts are now before us presented in a way which is very much more easy to understand. It is, in fact, possible to find one's way about them and to realise the condition of affairs on many of these estates. I do not think the accounts are free from criticism now, but they are certainly a great deal better than they were.
266
I should, however, like to bring before the notice of the noble Lord who will answer on behalf of the Scottish Office what appear to me to be certain details of inaccuracy appearing in this Report. I would refer him to page 7, dealing with the estate of Kilmuir. If he has before him the accounts of the previous year he will find that the arrears on March 31, 1911, were £4,024, but in this account the arrears are carried forward at a less figure—namely, £3,710. That is obviously a wrong figure. These accounts have no doubt been audited by the Treasury, and I submit that that figure should not have been allowed to appear without some explanation. I presume that what has happened is that some of the arrears have been cancelled. Then on the same page of the Report and in connection with the same estate it is stated that a sum of £4,474 has been paid on this estate this year. That also is incorrect, because, as my noble friend Lord Camperdown pointed out, a considerable part of that sum has been cancelled, and I contend that it is incorrect to put it down as having been paid. It is also a very misleading statement, because it would make it appear that the tenants of Kilmuir have paid up a year's rental and something more, while as a matter of fact they have done nothing of the kind; they have paid something like £500 or £600 less than the actual rental due. Lord Camperdown has dealt so fully with the question of arrears that I will not trouble your Lordships further upon that point, except to say that I think the position is a serious one and is growing more so.
In the earlier part of the Report there is a summary of the arrears due, but that does not include anything like the whole of the arrears on all the estates, but only the arrears on four or five selected estates. I should like the noble Lord to ascertain why the other estates are not also included in the summary. We see that the Board have spent something like £500,000 on their schemes in the congested area, and more than half of that has been spent upon colonisation schemes in the Western Islands. The system has been to cut up large sheep farms and present them in small lots to crofters. I think I am correct in saying that in those districts of the Western Islands the only profitable use for the land is sheep grazing, and the result of the schemes is that crofters have

267
been encouraged to arable farming in small quantities, and in no single instance that can be shown have they been able to earn a living. Moreover, the system generally has very largely lowered the capital value of the land, which I presume is a loss to the sum total value of the whole country. There are very good instances of that which I could show in the Report. I think the lowering of the capital value is an absolutely natural result of diverting land from its proper purpose and utilising it for a purpose which is an artificial one, and for which in this instance the soil is unsuitable.
The result of the fourteen years working is a dead loss to the Board. We must recognise that the position is an uneconomic one, and I do not know that we could complain of the loss if it could be shown that the scheme had justified its existence in being of benefit to those people on whose behalf it was started, but I do not think there is anything in this Report which shows that benefit has ensued. I do not complain of a good deal of the work of the Board. Very likely that part of their expenditure which has gone in public works, road making, and in constructing bridges, piers, and such like, may have been of considerable benefit to the community, but we do criticise the fact that the Board continue to go on with experiments which have during the last few years proved to he an absolute failure. At the very beginning they were face to face with almost an impossible position. There was widespread distress which had to be treated in some way or another. They selected a method which, according to the best advice given to them no doubt at that moment, showed some prospect of success. That was the method of splitting up these farms. But after that experiment has been tried for these, years and has not carried out the hopes expected of it, it seems to me it is time that some other alternative should be tried.
The general result we see now is that it is impossible for these people who have been planted on this land to earn a living. They can only exist by the generosity of the State, and by in almost every case receiving Poor-law relief. I do not think that is an existence which should be continued. It must he bad for their independence and bad for their character generally. I hope that the Board are grasping the situation and the very serious
268
nature of it. There is very little indication in the Report that they are doing so. But I fear very much that if things go on as they are the problem which exists now, which is largely the creation of the Board, will become a far more serious problem than that which they were appointed to remedy. I hope that in the next Report we may see that this has been taken into consideration, and that there may be some suggested alternative instead of those which have done duty for the last thirteen or fourteen years.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, this is not a new subject in your Lordships' House. It has been discussed from time to time here and in another place in various forms. Sometimes the discussion has turned on incidents in the history of this land question in the Western Islands and Highlands of Scotland, incidents which have lent themselves to acute party controversy, and sometimes the broader aspects of the case have been dealt with as they have been to-day. The root problem here is an economic problem. I venture to say that it is not in essence a party problem at all, and it can only be solved, as I hope it will be solved, by well directed and patient effort, not in one direction but in several directions.
The problem is extremely difficult. In the worst cases it is a problem, as Lord Camperdown has pointed out, of a congested population living on an area of land insufficient for their support, in great poverty, and in conditions in which there is naturally a very low rateable value per head, for, as the noble Earl has pointed out, the cottars do not pay rates at all, and the crofters do not pay on their buildings. But the children of these cottars who do not pay rates must be educated, and that, of course, adds to the cost of the education rate. So that on account of the poverty you have a high poor rate, and on account of the circumstances I have described you have a high education rate. The landlord has to pay his share of these rates, and when the rates are very high, as they are in some of these Islands, it is often a very serious matter for him.
The difficulty is, What is the remedy? Of course, migration and emigration naturally suggest themselves. The view

269
of the average Englishman is that the canny Scot is not unwilling to migrate to fresh fields and pastures new if it seems to be to his advantage, and that is the ease through a large part of Scotland. In fact, the extent of emigration in some parts of Scotland is, I believe, rather serious. But in these particular parts of Scotland there has been no tendency up to the present time, except almost under compulsion, either to migrate or to emigrate. I am glad to say I am informed that of late there is a greater tendency shown both to migrate and to emigrate from some of the most congested of these districts. I have spent such scant leisure as I have enjoyed during the last two or three days in studying this problem. I confess that at the end of it I feel a good deal of pity for the landlord, for the crofter, for the costar, and for the Government which has to try and find some remedy for this state of affairs. I would like to plead also for a little sympathy for myself in having to reply to-day to noble Lords who are admitted authorities in regard to all Scottish questions, and who have for years made a study of this particular question. I will reply as far as I can in some detail to some of the criticisms that have been offered, and I will try to answer some of the questions that have been asked.
The criticism of both the noble Earl opposite and of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, has really been an attack on the whole system which has been carried out by the Congested Districts Board. His Majesty's Government cannot claim credit for the initiation of that system. I believe the credit for it belongs to the noble Lord opposite, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and he made a very determined, and I think I may also add a much more successful, effort to start experiments in regard to congestion than some noble Lords opposite are willing to allow. The noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, complained of information having been withheld in regard to this matter. I am informed that the delay in the issue of the Final Report of the Congested Districts Board was due to the fact that summaries had to be prepared for the full period of its existence. That delayed matters to some extent, and also the Report had to be revised by officials of the new Board of Agriculture for Scotland, who were at that time very heavily pressed with work in taking up their new duties. I have no information
270
about the Report of the Crofters Commission, which the noble 14:arl mentioned, but I am authorised to say that the First Report of the new Board of Agriculture is likely to be published within a very few weeks, so that there will not be the unusual delay this year that occurred last year. A good many incidental points have been mentioned. I do not suppose I shall be able to remember all of them, but there are two or three to which I should like to reply at once. The noble Earl asked why the passage in the 1906 Report was repeated almost verbatim in the Report of 1912.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: And nothing done between.
LORD EMMOTT: I will deal with the noble Earl's interruption presently by giving information about some of the estates. But the reason that the passage was repeated was that this is really a summary of fourteen years work. I think the particular passage to which the noble Earl referred was the passage stating that stronger measures were being taken in order to recover arrears.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: What I said was that the paragraph relating to the Lews might have been cut with a pair of scissors out of the Report for the year which ended on March 31, 1906.
LORD EMMOTT: Then I am mistaken. In reference to the extract as to exercising pressure on those who were in arrears with their rents, I may say that the passage is not a verbatim repetition of the one which appeared in the Report of 1906, and it is a fact that in 1911 the Board did take vigorous action against selected defaulters. The noble Earl mentioned the rates of Vatersay. The total rate there has been greatly reduced, I am told—reduced by about one-third—since 1905. With regard to the point raised by Lord Clinton, I cannot off-hand explain the discrepancies in the accounts to which he drew attention. I have not got the Report of last year with me, but they are probably due to some of the arrears having been cancelled, as mentioned by Lord Camperdown. I am, however, not sure about that, but I know there were some irrecoverable arrears cancelled and that may explain it. Then the noble Lord asked why on page 12 only five estates are mentioned. Those are the five estates that have been bought by the Board. That is the reason why they are

271
mentioned separately. I admit, in regard to the figures given in this Report, that some of them are by no means satisfactory. It would be perfectly absurd to attempt to deny that. I cannot, however, agree to there being any wholesale failure in regard to this matter and I shall be able, I think, to put a little different complexion on some of the figures given here by later information which I have obtained. After all, experiments in regard to a question like this problem of congestion in the Western Islands and Highlands must be tried. There is no royal road to set everything right in a moment; and it is quite possible that in carrying out these experiments some mistakes may have been made.
Now let me deal with some of the particular estates that are mentioned. I take, in the first place, Syre. The Syre experiment is a pretty old one. The land and the shootings were bought from the Duke of Sutherland for £10,546 in 1901, and from 1901 to 1910 the settlers were fairly prosperous, though some did not meet fully their obligations to the Board. Between 1909 and 1911 there was an agitation by the peasant owners, who asked to be made into crofting tenants. They made that request, not, I think, to get rid of their arrears, as the noble Earl has suggested, but for other reasons. I can only say what I am informed, of course, but in Scotland, I gather, there is not a burning desire to be an owner, such as exists in Ireland, and on the whole the Scotsman has no objection to being a tenant instead of a purchasing owner. However, leaving that point, I may say that they have a direct financial reason for desiring the change, inasmuch as by becoming crofting tenants they obtain relief from the landlord's share of the rates. In regard to Syre, in particular, there were also difficulties in managing the shooting and other joint property. Those were the reasons why they asked for the change, and the change was consented to by the late Congested Districts Board. The new valuation has been made in regard to it, and it wipes off most of the arrears. There are some few who may still be in arrears, but there are others who will actually have certain amounts to their credit.
In regard to Northbay, Barra, the case is very much the same. The property was bought from Lady Cathcart for £7,500 and it was written down by the Board to £5,500. The old occupying owners have
272
been made on that estate also into crofting tenants, and I am told that almost all their arrears are wiped out by the change. It is useless for me, standing here and not knowing the circumstances or what the future will bring forth, to attempt to say what is going to happen there. All I can say is that if they are able to pay in the future what they have paid for a good many years they will not fall any further into arrears.
Then I come to Kilmuir. Kilmuir was bought by the late Unionist Government, but most of the details of the change fell into the hands of the present Government. In this case the new and old crofting tenants did not desire to become purchasing owners, and therefore they have remained tenants. Some of the old arrears—£8,812—have been cancelled as irrecoverable, and the arrears as stated on page 12 of this Report and in the Appendix at page 7 were £3,142 on March 31, 1912. I regret to say there has been no diminution but a slight increase in those arrears in regard to the year ended March 31, 1913; and I believe the arrears stood on. that date at something like £3,500—that is, almost one year's rent.
Then I come to Glendale, and here an explanation must be made. The Glendale occupying owners also desired to become crofting tenants, but the Board having looked into the matter came to the conclusion that it would not be to their interests to do so. They have written them to that effect, and no further communication has been made by the tenants to the Board; but I am happy to say that the rather heavy amount of arrears that accumulated during the year, of which particulars are given in this Report, have been very much reduced, and that now the arrears, instead of being £844, are very little over £200. That is to say, they really were expecting to become crofting tenants, and I suppose that now they are satisfied to remain peasant purchasers and so they have paid up a lot of the old arrears of annuities. I really must apologise for going at such length into these matters, but nearly all of them have been mentioned by the noble Earl, and I am merely trying to give what information I can about them.
With regard to Aignish, this was a case in which the Board may, I hope, be said to have bought some experience. In this case, instead of advancing money on loan to the tenants to build their own houses, they built the houses for them at

273
a rather high cost, and some of these houses are stated to have been not very satisfactory. I do not think that the Board are likely to follow the same course again, and I am sorry that the experiment which was tried was not more successful. With regard to various farms in South Fist — this again is an experiment for which the present Government are not responsible. The change was arranged when Lord Dunedin, then Mr. Graham Murray, was Secretary for Scotland. The noble Lord brought the social condition of the people in certain parts of South Uist to the notice of Lady Cathcart and induced her to break up four farms. Lady Cathcart did this somewhat unwillingly, neither she nor her agents, I think, believing in the system at all. May I say, incidentally, that I wish there were more faith in the system, as it might then be more easy to work it. When people do a thing like this unwillingly they naturally do not put their backs into it and help it on as much as if they were enthusiastically in favour of it. Lady Cathcart did this unwillingly, and I regret that that particular case has not been so successful as could be desired.
But may I just draw the attention of your Lordships to one or two other cases-1 will not go into details—which to all appearances are very much more successful. I allude particularly to Skirinish, which is mentioned on page 10 of the Appendix, and Dunbeath. So far as one can see—and the appearance of the figures is confirmed by the information given to me by the Board of Agriculture—these cases seem to be very successful. And may I point out another thing. A great many of these experiments have been made in the very worst places—I mean that the worst places were taken first; and it does not follow that because complete success has not occurred up to now in all places that is an argument against the whole system. I put the success of some and the moderate success of others against the cases which the noble Earl mentioned, in which, I admit, the figures are unsatisfactory. The figures of arrears of rent in the case of some of the farms which have been broken up are new to me, and I have no information about them. They are not contained in this Report, and I do not think they are in the possession of the Board of Agriculture. I regret very much to hear that the rents as well as the loan
274
instalments of some of those farms are in arrear.
Before I leave that question I want to mention two other points. The success of these new holdings, if they are ever going to he a success, will depend to a large extent upon improvement of methods of agriculture and of stock. Although a good deal was done by the old Congested Districts Board, they were not able to do all that they desired, and I am authorised to say that the Board of Agriculture are paying great attention to this matter and are most anxious to do all that can he done in this regard. If improved methods of agriculture are adopted and if the stock is improved, then it is quite conceivable that some cases which now do not appear very hopeful may present a much more favourable aspect in years to come. Another point is that in recent years the Aberdeen and Glasgow Agricultural Colleges have begun their educational campaign in the congested districts. It is carried on by itinerant lecturers, and the Board have welcomed their help and co-operation in every way they can. This education, I am informed, is beginning to bear fruit.
I want now to say a few words about the Lews. The condition of that Island was correctly described by Lord Cam per-down. I should like to point out in regard to the question of necessitous school areas that in three out of four parishes in that Island considerable sums have been given by the Education Department —namely, in Barvas, £684; Lochs, £573, and in Uig, £698. The recent and, I must say, rather painful report of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service, which must have been read by many of your Lordships, points out a good many difficulties in regard to medical service in those districts, and also raises the question of pauper lunatics and other matters. It is acknowledged in the Report, in a passage which the noble Earl opposite quoted, that there is not sufficient land in the Lews for the very large population which exists there at the present time. The noble Earl mentioned migration and emigration, and he spoke as if we had power to make these people migrate and emigrate. We have not the power, but I hope that the congested part of the population may take a different view from what they have in the past. I am informed that they are really doing so, and are beginning both to

275
migrate and emigrate more freely than they have hitherto.
The question of the rates is very serious in tale Lews. The proprietor, Major Matheson has asked the Scottish Office to render some assistance. He has, indeed, pressed the Department very strongly, and I would like to' say- a few words about the matter. The local administration is stated to be good and economical. The heavy burden is clue essentially to the causes to which the noble Earl alluded, and of which I have already spoken—to the presence of a numerous population of which the great majority is very poor. It is aggravated in particular by a large cottar class, who contribute to pauperism and education charges but under the present valuation and rating system contribute nothing to the cost. A few years ago to meet an immediate emergency—the refusal of overdrafts by the banks—the Local Government Board for Scotland and the Treasury gave a guarantee of the overdrafts. In one parish—Trig—the overdraft has been wholly paid off in another—Lochs—-it has been considerably reduced. About the year 1908 Major Matheson and the parish councils engaged in litigation, and Major Matheson succeeded in getting his deduction between gross and rateable value raised from 5 per cent. to 45 per cent., making the assessable rental 55 per cent. instead of 95 per cent., of the gross rental. The cost of the Poor rates, of course, remained unaltered, and as half of the total is borne by owners and Major Matheson is practically the only owner in the Lews his aggregate payment in cash was not substantially affected. But the nominal rate was enormously increased, and the law costs and the shortage due to the relief gained by Major Matheson owing to this litigation were very considerable and have had to be wiped out.
Major 'Matheson states that ever since the percentage of deduction was altered the rates have gone up. That is true to some extent, particularly of Barvas, but the expenses of the litigation have been felt for several years and are partly accountable. I should like to give the total rates for 1904–5 and 1911–12, and also the portion of those rates that Major Matheson paid. In 1904–5 the total rates were £5,351, and of that amount Major Matheson paid,£4,331. In 1911–12 the total was £5,553, and of that he paid £4,185. In each case about £1,400 of the
276
amount he paid was due to the shooting rents. This shows that in spite of a nominal increase in the rate Major Matheson's actual payment in cash has not increased during those years, but has rather decreased.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I should like to know whether he can give us the rateable value of the Lews?
LORD EMMOTT: I am very sorry that I cannot. These are the rates in the three parishes. The solution of these questions pointed to by Lord Balfour of Burleigh in the Report which he issued as Chairman of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation was a redistribution of grants so as specially to relieve those parishes where the rates are high and the rateable value is low per capita. A strong Committee is now sitting to consider generally the relations of the Imperial Exchequer to local taxation, and their Report must have an important bearing on this question. The Government recognise the burden of rating in the Lews—in fact, nobody can fail to recognise it—and in some other districts. They recognise also the position of difficulty in which the proprietor and others are placed. But they are not prepared to make a special grant to the Lews, as they have been requested to do. Any solution of this question—and I hope a solution will not be long in coming—must be on wider lines. With relief from the cost of litigation, which, as I have shown, has added to the rates, and with some economies in administration, it is hoped that the immediate outlook may be a little brighter. Also possibly migration, assisted by the Board of Agriculture, and emigration may tend further to mitigate the situation. As soon as the recommendations of the Committee dealing with the question of the relations between the Imperial Exchequer and local authorities are available the Government will lose no time in considering them in reference to the Lews and any other places in generally similar circumstances. And meantime, they will consider whether anything can be clone in anticipation of these recommendations. Once again I apologise to your Lordships for the length of time I have taken. My excuse is that I desired to give as complete a reply on this question as I possibly could.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we all recognise the candour and sincerity with which the noble Lord has replied to my two noble friends. We

277
recognise also the pains be has taken to familiarise himself with the very detailed questions which necessarily arise in the course of these discussions, and, of course, we are not the least surprised that on some points which present themselves with regard to it the noble Lord should not be able to give an answer at this moment. I am particularly glad to gather that we may look forward in the future to a more punctual presentation of these Reports, because it is a great disadvantage to us to discuss them so long after the date of the events to which they have reference. With regard to the points that my noble friend Lord Clinton Mentioned, I hope the noble Lord will make it his business to ascertain how these extraordinary inconsistencies have arisen. It really looks a little bit as if the person who had put these figures together had not been quite able to distinguish between an abandoned arrear and a cash payment. They are not quite the same thing.
I think the noble Lord was mistaken when he suggested that my two noble friends desired, as he put it, to attack the whole system upon which the Congested Districts Board has administered its affairs. We are all of us more or less committed to the system, for it has been the work not of one Party but of both Parties. But I do think that we are entitled to examine with a somewhat critical eye experiments of the kind of those which are now in progress in these Highlands and Islands. I certainly should not look at those experiments with a grudging eye merely upon the ground that they had necessitated a good deal of what we sometimes call uneconomic expenditure. You have to deal with very backward districts and a very poor population, and we all feel that in many ways it is possible to improve their prospects, and that a certain amount of expenditure may well be incurred without the prospect of arty immediate return—for example, in enlarging their holdings, in teaching them improved methods of agriculture, in improving the breeds of the animals necessary for their farms, in better distributing the population, and in improving the means of communication. Upon all these objects I think most of us would be prepared to see public money spent, but upon this condition, that there is some prospect of the expenditure leading to a permanent melioration in the lot of the people concerned. That idea is, I hope, not absent from the minds of the Commissioners them-
278
selves, because I see that on page 9 of this Report they say that it is their desire to provide a fair number of self-sustaining holdings upon which a man with a knowledge of farming could find comfortable living. That is the whole point. Are you creating holdings which are now self-sustaining, or which. hold out the slightest prospect of ever becoming self sustaining? What I am afraid of is that these Boards have been muddling along in these remote regions trying experiments and persisting in those experiments long after it has, become evident that they are not in the least likely to succeed.
My noble friend referred to the case of the Lews, and I observed that on that point the noble Lord who spoke for the Government did not really attempt to contradict what my noble friend said. It is established by this document that in the case of the Lews you have acute and widespread congestion; that if the whole of the land, of which a great part is entirely unfitted for agriculture, were taken for crofting purposes there would not be sufficient to supply the needs of the crofter population; and it is further established that the congestion is in great measure due to the presence of numbers of cottars and squatters who have established themselves both on the common pasture and. on individual holdings, and, as the noble Lord pointed out a moment ago, these good people enjoy the privilege, sonic of them of complete, and others of partial, immunity from the payment of rates. Then you find this most depressing feature, common to the case of the Lews and to other cases of the same type —that these are the very people who, when they are offered the chance of greatly improved conditions of existence elsewhere, refuse to leave their present homes. The noble Lord said with great truth. that it is not very easy to dislodge cottars and squatters when yon find them in these numbers, but at any rate I would humbly suggest that it is not desirable in the circumstances to do too much to encourage them to remain where they are at present; and I am very glad to learn from the noble Lord that sounder views upon the subject of migration are beginning to prevail amongst them.
The noble Lord referred, and I think very rightly, to an extraordinarily interesting document—I mean the report of the Medical Commission which has lately been inspecting the Highlands and

279
Islands. The picture drawn in that Report confirms the impression which one derives from the Report which my noble friend has quoted. Does it not, then, come to this, that in cases of this kind you are really persisting in an arrangement which is grossly unfair to all concerned? It is unfair to the landowners; it is unfair to the crofters themselves; it is unfair last, but not least, to the taxpayers of this country. The landowners have, I must say, been used very hardly indeed in some of these cases, for I think it is a great hardship that a man should be compelled to give up a farm which is let to a solvent and suitable tenant, and to cut up that farm into a number of these uneconomic crofts. I think too much credit cannot be given to those landowners who, as we learn from this Report, have given their co-operation in carrying out these changes.
In regard to the crofters themselves—I do not wish to say it of the whole of the crofters concerned, but of the crofters in Lewis and in places where like conditions prevail—it seems to me that you are face to face with a population which is very poor and miserable, very insolvent, and which, so far as one can judge, is not the least likely to improve its lot if it remains where it is now. But the greatest hardship of all, I venture to think, is the hardship occasioned to the taxpayer, and I ask your attention to the account given of the financial results of these transactions upon page 12 of the Report. I gather that on March 31, 1912, out of an amount due of nearly £11,000, very little over £5,000 was paid, and that in spite of the fact that, as is shown on page 7 of the Appendix, the total expenditure upon this little group of districts must have amounted to something like a quarter of a million of public money. That is really a very serious condition of things indeed, and one can scarcely be surprised that the Commissioners should have admitted the necessity of doing something to improve the prospect of more punctual payment. The noble Lord, I think, held out some hopes that that improvement was likely to take place, and we all trust that his anticipations will be realised.
I will venture to say one thing more before I sit down, and it is this. Considering what has already happened in the areas which are dealt with in this Report, I do trust that His Majesty's
280
Government will be a little careful how they press this policy any further when they are dealing with regions as unpromising as these West Highland regions. There is, it seems to me, a serious danger of our creating in this part of Scotland, deliberately creating, a number of uneconomic holdings such as we are at this moment trying at great expense to get rid of in another part of the United Kingdom. I believe that no greater mistake can be made than that of forcing upon any part of the country a system of agriculture for which that country is altogether unfitted. The only result will be that you will have an increase in the number of people situated as these inhabitants of Lewis are situated, who are themselves in a very pitiable condition, are a great source of expense to the public, and are in a sense also a danger to the peace and stability of the surrounding community.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will withdraw my Motion for Papers, and I must thank the noble Lord opposite for the speech which he has made, because I know the difficult position in which he was placed by finding himself suddenly introduced to the cottars and squatters of the Western Highlands. While the noble Lord was speaking I am bound to say that I felt in my own mind a slight regret that he had not been Secretary for Scotland for the last six or seven years, because the whole tone of his remarks was entirely different from that to which we have been accustomed in this House during that period. The noble Lord recognises facts and deals with them accordingly. But if I was grateful to him for that, I was still more grateful to him for another thing, which was that for the first time in this. House for some years we have heard the word "emigration" pronounced from the Government Bench without its being condemned. The real truth is that the only way the condition of affairs in a congested island like the Lews can be dealt with is for some of the people to emigrate, and if the new Board would only spend on emigration a very small proportion of the money which has been spent in converting land not very suitable for the purpose into arable land, I believe the Land Court and the Board of Agriculture would confer a very considerable benefit on that part of Scotland with which we have been dealing this evening.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, this is a very modest and unpretending Bill which does not in any considerable degree alter the present law, but which I think will be very advantageous. Under the present law, if a solicitor is guilty of any misconduct his action is brought before the High Court, but the facts are inquired into by a standing committee appointed under an Act of Parliament. They make a report to the Judges, and thereupon the Judges inflict any sentence of deprivation or suspension that they may think proper. The purpose of this Bill is that when the facts have been investigated by the committee, then the committee themselves shall have the power to impose the appropriate sentence. It does not in any way interfere With the jurisdiction of the Judges, who will be able to correct, or to supersede, any orders which may be made by the committee. But the committee, instead of being merely a reporting body, are to be a body invested with some authority, subject always to an appeal.
The Bill will increase the responsibility and the authority of the committee, and cannot, I think, possibly do any harm to anybody, seeing that the jurisdiction of the Judges themselves is not at all impaired. The Bill is not only supported, as I am informed, by the Law Society themselves, but it is approved by my noble and learned friend the Lord. Chancellor. He desires, it is true, to make a reservation on one particular point, but in regard to that. I shall quite readily meet him in case he should find it necessary to persist in his criticism, It seems to me that it would be an advantage that a sense of responsibility and authority should attach to the disciplinary body of the profession. It is very much the same kind of thing as exists at the Bar at the present time, when the Inns of Court are able to disbar a man or to make an order of this kind, subject to appeal to His Majesty's Judges. Under these circumstances I hope the Bill may be read a second time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Loreburn.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

BETTING INDUCEMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING]
Order of Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is a Bill which I introduced and which passed through this House last session without opposition, and I only desire to make one observation upon it to-day. Although there was considerable discussion in the Press with regard to this particular Bill, no objection whatever was taken to it by anybody or any association with the exception of a section of the Sporting Press, and the action of the Sporting Press has demonstrated the necessity of passing a measure of this kind, because I understand they have recently formed an association for the purpose of suppressing what are known as tipsters' advertisements and advertisements of objectionable bookmakers. On the strength of this action this association of the Sporting Press, with a simplicity which is almost pathetic, have demanded that the Bill should be withdrawn. I should have thought it was hardly necessary to explain even to the Sporting Press that papers like the Sporting Life or the Winning Post, or whatever it may be, do not possess Statutory Powers, and it is open to any one to defy them and to do whatever they condemn; and in particular they have absolutely no power over those blatant and objectionable circulars which we all, if you are like me, receive several times a week.
I have one additional observation to make and it is this. This House in certain quarters is always believed to be the home of prejudice and reaction. I suppose this measure which I introduce meets that, and may be termed a species of extremely modest social reform. It passed through your Lordships' House, as I have said, without any opposition whatever, but the moment it went down to another place it was blocked by a gentleman who probably regards himself as the quintessence of democracy. I leave it to more intelligent people than myself to explain this phenomenon if they can. But I am not altogether without hopes that the representative of the Government who replies will be able to give me sonic sort of assurance that he will do his best to prevent a similar untimely fate awaiting the measure when it again goes down to another place.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Newton.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I have again on behalf of the Home Office to express their approval of the noble Lord's Bill. We fully recognise at the Home Office that this is a Bill which is generally required, and we hope that it will have an easy passage through this House. The noble Lord has asked me to say what will happen to it in another place. He, like myself, spent many years in the House of Commons, and he knows very well the great difficulties of getting Bills of this sort passed when they are introduced by a private Member. He also knows very well that at this stage of a measure, and even at a later stage in the House of Commons itself, the Government never give any promise as to whether they will eventually afford any support to a Bill by starring it. Therefore it would be unreasonable to expect that on this occasion the Government should do anything more than express their approval of it, and their hope that it may be placed on the Statute Book in the near future.
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, I feel bound to say a word or two in support of my noble friend's Bill on behalf of the Charity Organisation Society, of the Council of which I am at present the chairman. The society takes a deep interest in this question as affecting the welfare of the poorer classes, and is greatly concerned at the spread of the practice of betting among the younger portion of the population. Nobody dissents, I suppose, from the opinion expressed by a Committee of this House eleven years ago as to the evil of excessive betting or the increased opportunities afforded for it through the agency of the -Press. The se opportunities have certainly not diminished. As I was walking along the street this morning I saw two large orange coloured posters, one announcing the fall of Scutari and the other, in equally large type, the latest City and Suburban tips.
What I want to impress on the Government is that we are spending enormous sums of money in bringing up the younger generation as self-supporting and self-respecting citizens. It is the height of inconsistency that lessons in thrift should be given in England with the approval of the Government, and vet that while that is being done we should allow every kind of inducement to be put before young people to risk ruining themselves for the sake of a little temporary excitement. It is really absurd to
284
say, as some have contended, that legislation can do nothing. Anybody who has studied the history of this question will have seen that legislation has had a definite, though a limited, effect in restricting the growth of the evil. Because this is a very moderate Bill and will give an opportunity, if something more is required, of new legislation hereafter, I earnestly hope that the Government will give it their support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
LORD MONK BRETTON: I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Insurance Commissioners have intimated to certain Insurance Committees that "food" or "special food" may be provided if recommended by a panel doctor as part of "treatment" under the Insurance Act; whether they have issued any general regulation on the subject, and if not, why they have enabled certain Insurance Committees to treat the insured persons in their areas more favorably than insured persons in the areas of Insurance Committees who have not received that intimation; whether the Insurance Commissioners will issue any definition of "food" or of "special food" in this connection, and if so, by what date; whether at the present time it is in the power of any Insurance Committees, on the recommendations of panel doctors, to provide all the food and drink necessary to the maintenance of insured persons receiving treatment for sanatorium or medical benefit in their areas; what part of the £12,010,300 estimated to be expended in benefits during the year 1913–14 is set to the cost of food.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative as regards medical benefit, and, subject to certain qualifications, in the affirmative as regards sanatorium benefit. With regard to the second part, the Commissioners have not issued any general regulation on the subject, and there is no ground for the suggestion of preferential treatment of some Committees. With regard to the third part, the Insurance Commissioners have stated that an insured person in receipt

285
of sanatorium benefit may be supplied with such special food as may be ordered by the doctor and is ancillary to the treatment of the ease, and they do not consider that the issue of any further definition is necessary. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative. As to the last part it is not possible to give any approximate estimate of the cost of such special food as may be supplied to insured persons during the year 1913–14; but, for the reasons given above, the amounts must necessarily be small.

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be react 3a To-morrow.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): An Amendment (privilege) made, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES BILL.
[SECOND READING]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRACHIE: Your Lordships are, of course, aware of the reasons why it is necessary that this Bill should be brought forward. It arises out; of the decision in the case of Bowles v. the Attorney-General. The decision laid down by the Court was that Income Tax could not be collected until the Finance Bill had received the Royal Assent. It therefore became at once necessary for the Government to see low the difficulty created might be solved, because as a matter of fact what the Court of Law has decided was illegal has been a practice which has grown up fox, a great number of years for the general convenience of bankers, traders, and the community at large. What this Bill practically asks the House to do is to enact a practice which has been in existence for the last sixty years.
I will very shortly state the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the
286
collection of taxes on the authority of Resolutions passed in Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Commons, but there are very important limitations as regards that authority for the collection of taxes upon a Resolution alone passed by Committee of Ways and Means. The Resolution must be confirmed by the House within ten sitting days; and, further, it has to be embodied in a Bill and read a second time in the House of Commons within the next twenty sitting days, or else the Resolution ipso facto lapses. It is also provided that the. Resolution must be confirmed by the Act, within four months from the date of the passing of the Resolution or the date on which it is expressed to take effect. The Resolution must also contain a declaration that "it is expedient in the public interest that the Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of this Act." A Resolution to that effect was actually moved last night in the House of Commons, and old Members of that House will have recognised that for the first time on a Budget night no Resolution at all was passed.
The very important addition to the Resolution providing that the Resolution shall not have statutory effect unless there is a declaration that it is in the interest that it shall have statutory effect, is, of coarse, with the object of emphasising the importance of this change; and also to provide that unless it is in the public interest effect ought not to be given to it. Then also the Bill is limited to the variation or renewal of existing duties of Customs and Excise and to Income Tax, and new taxes are altogether excluded from its operation. Further, the Bill provides for tile repayment of taxes collected under a Resolution not sanctioned by Parliament within four months, there again "showing how careful the Bill is to see that everything is done in due form and has the proper sanction of Parliament within a reasonable time. Clause 2 provides that the provisional collection of a temporary tax for one month after its expiration shall be subject to repayment in the event of the tax not being renewed by the House of Commons. Deductions made in the past before the passing of the Finance Act in this or in former years are legalised by this Bill. Generally, I may say as regards this Bill that it has been stated in the House of Commons that the Government have undertaken to appoint

287
a Select Committee of that House to see whether any better means than those embodied in this Bill can be devised to meet the difficulty created by the decision in the Bowles case. I may add, in conclusion, that the Bill is an attempt to deal with a temporary difficulty, and the Government consider that it provides the best means of meeting it until the promised Select Committee are able to devise a better solution of the difficulty which has been created by the decision of the Court. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, circumstances are not convenient for any lengthened debate upon this Bill, nor, indeed, do I think it would be advisable in view of the fact that it has the certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons that it is a Money Bill, and therefore one with which under the Parliament Act this House has practically no power at all to interfere. At the same time I must express my very great regret that this legislation has been found necessary at all. The custom and usage of levying taxes, especially indirect taxes, on a Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Commons is one of long standing and is of great convenience, and really of something more than convenience, for the proper collection of the taxes of the year. I know that the custom has been objected to in debates in another place on this Bill on high Constitutional grounds. That leaves me quite cold, because if ever there was a. sinner in this respect I am the greatest sinner. No one alive, at any rate, has imposed so many new or increased so many old taxes simply on the authority of a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means as I have done. That custom and usage, though I think in every way useful, is one thing, but to try to put it into the form of a Statute is quite another thing.
The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill did not, I think, go far back enough in the reason he gave for its introduction. He based it upon the decision in favour of Mr. Bowles against the Bank of England. But there was something which happened before that. The fact is that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer grossly abused the old custom and usage of levying taxes by
288
Resolution in Committee by postponing the consideration and passing of the Budget until practically the end of the year in which it was introduced, and naturally that aroused objections to the practice which had never been dreamt of before, for I do not believe that even Mr. Bowles, with all his ingenuity, would ever have thought of starting in the case in which he succeeded if the old practice had been followed in the way it had been followed by all Chancellors of the Exchequer who preceded Mr. Lloyd George.
Well, now we have this Bill before us. As the noble Lord has admitted, it is a purely temporary measure. It is an imperfect measure, because it does not deal with the most important part of this question, the levying of the new taxes. What happens when a new Customs Duty or Excise Duty is imposed obviously is this: the very moment that the persons concerned in the article on which the duty is to be levied get wind of the proposal to impose the duty they clear all their goods out of bond so as to avoid the duty for that year. This Bill does not apply to new taxes, but it is perfectly obvious that the loss to the State by that practice is far greater in the case of the imposition of any new indirect taxes than in the case merely of an increase of Customs or Excise duties or of the Income Tax. The noble Lord has said that a Committee is to be appointed to inquire into the whole subject. They will have to consider that, and I cannot imagine that their inquiry will be limited by what obviously affected the views of a good many Members of the House of Commons who are supporters of the Government, and perhaps the Government themselves, in this matter. They obviously did not want to facilitate any new indirect taxes that may be proposed by some subsequent Government who adopt the policy of Tariff Reform. I am not myself, as noble Lords know very well, in accord with the policy of the Tariff Reform League, but I do hold very strongly indeed that our present system of taxation is most imperfect, and every year becomes more imperfect as a fair system of taxation, and in view of the enormously increasing expenditure, which no one seems perhaps disposed to check, the time must come before long when new indirect taxes of some sort must be imposed to enable the country to bear the great burdens which are every year being imposed upon it.

289
Then, of course, it will be necessary to apply something of the new proposals which are made in this Bill to those new taxes.
The Bill is rather a complicated measure, and it is one which, I think, is susceptible of a good many legal questions, and its working, if anyone chooses to question it, may not be found quite so smooth as its authors predict. If my opposition could have any effect on the Bill I should not wish to give that opposition. So far as the Bill goes, I believe it is necessary in the circumstances of the case; but I believe that the real authors of the difficulty which this Bill is intended to meet sit upon the Ministerial Bench in the House of Commons.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It will seem rather bold for one who has never had the privilege of—indeed, who has never even been eligible for—a seat in the other House of Parliament to venture to express an opinion upon a Bill of this kind. I need hardly say that with the main part of what the noble Viscount has said I venture most respectfully to agree. If I may say so, one thing which struck me in the speech of the noble Lord who introduced this Bill was the studious way in which he minimised this Bill. He spoke at length upon the limitations, and said there was to be a Select Committee which would find a real solution, he hoped, of the difficulties, and that, after all, this Bid was only to meet a temporary difficulty. But it is a very different proposal now from that which was put before the other House of Parliament when the first Resolutions were put on the Table. It was then intended to apply to all new taxes, and I venture to say without fear of contradiction that if any provision of the kind had been proposed to be put into a permanent Statute it would have been—I do not go too far when I say—the greatest evasion which history would have shown of what we know as the Bill of Rights.
It is all very well to talk about this being a legalisation of a custom, but the custom, as the noble Viscount has said, was one of obvious convenience. It was purely temporary. The Budget was passed within a very few weeks at the most, and for the convenience of all concerned that was allowed; but the financial provisions for the year took precedence of a great deal of legislation, and if you are
290
going to give legislation precedence of the financial provisions of the year in another place it raises a very different set of considerations. There have been two instances in comparatively recent times of taxes proposed and pressed with sonic force by a Chancellor of the Exchequer which were refused. There was the Wheel and Van Tax of Lord Goschen, and the Match Tax of Mr. Lowe; and I venture to say that if the proposals of the Government as they were first tabled had been enforced under the conditions now existing any extravagant proposals like those I have mentioned could be carried into effect without any power of resistance on the part of the House of Commons.
The circumstances are changing day by day, and every change seems to me to tend in the same direction—to diminish the real power of the House of Commons as the representatives of the people, and to make the power of the Executive Government more and more into a tyranny. It is a combination of circumstances for which, perhaps, no Party is responsible, for which no individual, perhaps, is responsible, more than another. I do not go into that because I do not want to make a Party matter of it; but beyond all question the Constitution is undergoing a serious change, and the cumulative effect of it is that the people have less power than they had before in matters of this kind. The Executive Government has much greater power over the house of Commons than it had, and the people have less power of having their will given effect to. In addition to that, this proposal of the Government as first intended seemed to me to be a continuation of what they have been doing during the whole course of their tenure of office in the last few years, the tendency—I am only going to use it as an illustration—to substitute Departmental power for the power of the Law Courts, and to impose general restraint. In the Budget Bill there were something like forty cases where the power of the Law Courts was superseded by Departmental administration under that Statute. In the Insurance Act there are more than a hundred, and even where there is a qualified power of appeal to the Law Courts—in Section 67, I think—the Lord Chancellor of the day, who is a Government official, is allowed to choose the Judge who is to try the case. I have no doubt that that discretion will be exercised as all

291
other discretions in that high office are exercised, but that seems to me in itself to be a precedent which shows how far the idea of constitutional freedom is being relaxed.
I know perfectly well that even if one were inclined to move the rejection of this Bill this House could only delay it for a month, and after what the noble Viscount has said it would be obviously useless to make such a Motion, although I am not quite certain we might not delay it for a day or two. That, however, I believe would cause an amount of inconvenience, because the Budget Resolutions in another place are waiting for this Bill to receive the Royal Assent. I do not wish to cause any inconvenience of that kind, and would be the last person to take such a step. The Bill as it stands, as the noble Lord has said, is a purely temporary measure. We must wait for the Report of the Select Committee and the decision of the Government and the other House of Parliament upon it. But I want to sound this note of warning. I think this is a sort of thing which requires careful scrutiny, and I hope when the time comes it will get that scrutiny, not from one Party alone but a scrutiny on account of the large constitutional issues involved, which in my opinion it really deserves.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): I am sure the Government may congratulate themselves upon the fact that this Bill has received at all events a modified approval from the two noble Lords who have spoken, for they realise, I think, as readily as any member of the Government the temporary necessity which exists for the passage of this measure. We share the regret which was expressed by the noble Viscount at the introduction of this measure, and I shall not detain your Lordships on this occasion by arguing with him as to where the responsibility really rests—whether it rests more immediately with the gentleman who brought the action, or with my right hon. friends who sit on the Treasury Bench in another place. At any rate, the fact remains that there is the necessity for this Bill, and it comes up to your Lordships, as we have been told already, under a
292
certificate from the Speaker. But although that is so, I think we may congratulate ourselves none the less upon the fact that it has given an opportunity to members of your. Lordships' House well versed in the financial system of this country to say something upon the subject, and it does show that, although the Parliament Act limits the financial powers of your Lordships' House, it will not prevent in the future interesting and perhaps even very valuable discussions upon financial questions. For the moment it remains for me to thank your Lordships for the reception which has been given to the Bill, and to say to the noble Lord who has just sat down that I welcome his readiness to expedite the passage of this Bill. It is perfectly true that we did not think it necessary to deal with the new taxes which might be imposed, because we look upon this as a temporary measure until some better means of dealing with the difficulty has been found. It is, we think, for the public convenience, and being for the public convenience we have been careful in this measure to make no extension at all of the present practice, but rather the reverse. We have made statutory provision by which part of the present practice becomes the law of the land. In these circumstances I am glad to think that your Lordships' House will put no difficulties in the way of the passage of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

HARBOUR, &c., BILLS.
Report respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order) this day, and to be printed. (No. 30.)

PRISONERS (TEMPORARY DISCHARGE FOR ILL-HEALTH) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a to be printed, and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Chancellor) and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with. (No. 31.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.